Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pornography

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What recent discussions she has had with the newspaper and magazine industry on the display of pornographic material at the point of sale.

Shaun Woodward: Officials from the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and my Department met representatives of the publishers, wholesalers and retailers of magazines and newspapers earlier this year to discuss this issue. As a result, the trade associations issued guidelines reminding members of the need to exercise common sense in deciding how to display material intended for adults.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that earlier this year I introduced a ten-minute Bill that called for a ban on the sale of sexually explicit material to children. Despite huge public support for that request, the response from WH Smith was to issue a notice that such material may still be displayed at 1.2 m, which is the height of the average seven-year-old. Given that the industry appears incapable of regulating itself, will my hon. Friend consider meeting me and child-centred agencies to talk about what we can do to prohibit the sale of such material to children?

Shaun Woodward: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House? Both sides will agree that self-regulation is always preferable to Government regulation. We saw a good example of that with the video games industry two or three years ago. A problem was drawn to its attention and it responded by changing methods of classification and dealing with retailers. My Department is consulting on the issue that my hon. Friend rightly raises, and I hope that she and other hon. Members who wish to lobby on the issue will provide more evidence. It is appropriate to encourage the industry to self-regulate. I have now seen some of the content in question and it is clearly preposterous to suggest that placing the material at a height of 1.2 m is an adequate safeguard.

Angela Watkinson: The definition of pornography is a grey area. One of the main publications that has given rise to concern is the  Daily Star. Has the Minister had any discussions with the printing industry on whether the contents of that publication constitute pornography, because I am sure that most responsible newsagents would happily consign it to the top shelf?

Shaun Woodward: We have not had specific discussions with the  Daily Star—[Hon. Members: " Daily Sport."] Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has now given me a copy of the  Daily Sport and I understand that hon. Members are interested in looking at it.
	The material in some of the publications is the kind of stuff that one would expect to find, at best, on the top shelf and probably not in any newsagent. It is important that the House takes the matter seriously and that we consult on it. It is our ambition to achieve a resolution through self-regulation, but we would like the industry to take the issue as seriously as it merits.

Helen Goodman: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments and the slightly more open approach that he is now taking to the issue. In his consideration, will he take into account the fact that retailers and distributors of magazines have contractual arrangements under which more is paid to have magazines displayed at the most visible levels? It should therefore be straightforward to sort out which contracts are acceptable and which are not.

Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I hope that when we consult on this later this year she will bring forward any evidence that she has as part of that consultation.

Gambling

Bill Wiggin: What assessment she has made of recent trends in the number of people who are problem gamblers.

Desmond Swayne: What steps she is taking to reduce the level of gambling addiction.

Tessa Jowell: The latest estimate, from 2000, suggested that 0.6 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain are problem gamblers. That is a low proportion and we intend to keep it that way. The Gambling Commission's next prevalence study is under way and will report in September 2007, to coincide with the introduction of the Gambling Commission. The figure for problem gambling in that report will provide the benchmark against which further judgments will be made. We intend that the Gambling Act 2005 will introduce the most protective regime in the world, with the key aim of protecting the vulnerable and children from the risks of gambling. It is worth underlining the extent to which the Gambling Commission and I, as Secretary of State, will have unprecedented powers to intervene in how gambling is run to minimise harm, protect children and keep the levels of problem gambling low.

Bill Wiggin: GamCare says that the number of people using the charity for gambling-related counselling has increased by 41.3 per cent. between 2004 and 2005. The Secretary of State gave a figure of 0.6 per cent. in her answer. Does that mean that 250,000 to 350,000 people have gambling problems? Therefore, has she not presided, perhaps irresponsibly, over an enormous explosion in problem gambling?

Tessa Jowell: Not at all. The figure that I quoted of 0.6 per cent. represents about 360,000 people in Great Britain, and derives from the 2000 prevalence study. It is time to update the figure, because new technologies mean that more people are gambling. It is precisely because of the inadequate protection offered by the existing regime that, two years ago, we introduced the Gambling Act 2005. It established the Gambling Commission, which will be a powerful regulator, with the central aim of promoting social responsibility among operators and keeping problem gambling low.

Desmond Swayne: What specific measures will be taken to reduce what is now a severe social problem, given the number of problem gamblers?

Tessa Jowell: Can I say, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, that we have one of the lowest rates of problem gambling in the world, and we intend to keep it that way? That is not in any way to diminish the suffering of those people and families for whom gambling becomes a problem. However, the list of measures includes, from September next year, the removal of 6,000 machines from unregulated premises such as minicab offices and fish-and-chip shops, to protect children from the risks of addiction to fruit machines. The Gambling Commission will have powers to oversee and to control the rate and frequency of play, stakes, and access to gaming machines which, as we know, can be a source of addiction. In particular, £3 million a year will be levied from the industry to support services for people who become addicted. Such work will be undertaken through the good offices of GamCare and the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). In addition, at the end of the month we will host an international summit that will look at the exponential increase in online gambling. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will take comfort from the measures that the Government have put in place to protect people from gambling and the risks, particularly from new technologies.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware of concern about the rise in online gambling. It is difficult to see what social good will come from it, as it does not even create jobs. She will be aware, too, that the US Congress is examining steps to clamp down on online gambling by stopping credit card companies processing payments. Are the Government looking at such measures for the UK?

Tessa Jowell: As I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), at the end of the month we will host an international summit to address precisely that problem. As things stand, such offshore gambling is beyond the regulatory reach of the UK. The United States has recently introduced new legislation to enforce existing powers. We can certainly— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be better if the Secretary of State addressed the Chair.

Tessa Jowell: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
	To sum up, of course, we will look at that issue, but our approach to gambling regulation is different: to avoid prohibition, to introduce regulation and to avoid the damage that the free market will do. That is the approach—not just to gambling in this country but to the increased gambling opportunities online.

Si�n Simon: The Gambling Commission is central to this, so I congratulate the Secretary of State on the decision, taken over the summer, to locate it in Birmingham. May I suggest that she take a similar approach to the regional casino and to what may technically be known as the London Olympics but which we in Birmingham hope will be known as the Birmingham and rest of Britain Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and I am sure that the Gambling Commission will flourish in Birmingham. The decision about the location of the single regional casino is a decision for Parliament, on recommendation from Professor Crow when he and his panel report later this year.

Don Foster: Is not the Secretary of State right in acknowledging that, if online gambling is the largest cause of increases in problem gambling, it is crucial that we get online gambling organisations registered and regulated in the United Kingdom? She is right to say that in this country we have the toughest regulatory regime, but at the moment nobody is coming here because we do not have the taxation regime right. When will she sort that out with the Treasury?

Tessa Jowell: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, my Department is in discussion with the Treasury about precisely that point. We are concerned to ensure increasingly that online gambling companies understand the benefits of registering in this country. The consequence of that is their good name in complying with the very high regulatory standards and standards of public protection and social responsibility that will accompany the issue of their licence.

Denis MacShane: But is not the real problem that the internet is now spreading gambling as a vice, as it does with pornography? I welcome the action of the American authorities in clamping down on that. A little bit of prohibition in both areas would be a good thing. Will the Secretary of State talk to the United States to see what we can do to stop pornography as well as online gambling polluting the screens that our children and too many of our fellow citizens look at?

Tessa Jowell: I understand why my right hon. Friend links the two issues, but it is important to take this on a case-by-case basis. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country gamble online and never have a problem with it. We have to ensure that the small majority who have a problem are properly protected and that there is no scope for exploitation, fraud or any of the other detriment that will harm people and undermine the objectives of our policy. We certainly ban internet material where it is pornographic and promotes violence. It is not our intention to ban internet gambling as such, but it is our intention to make sure that people are properly protected when they play.

Malcolm Moss: Presumably, the Secretary of State agrees with her official briefing, recently quoted in the press:
	It is a government-wide policy, and that includes HM Treasury, that Britain should become a world leader in the field of on-line gambling.
	How can the Secretary of State justify giving tax advantages to online gambling operations that other forms of gambling and betting will not enjoy? Given the mounting evidence that problem gambling is growing fastest in the field of online gambling, what assurances can she give that Britain will not become a world leader in problem gambling as well?

Tessa Jowell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurances, and indeed the careful scrutiny before the House of the Gambling Act 2005 as a measure to prevent problem gambling. In relation to his point about the regulatory status of online gambling, there are decisions to be taken by my Department; ultimately the taxation position is a judgment for the Treasury. It may be that in other countriesother jurisdictionsthe tax advantages will be better, but in the long run it is in the interests of modern gambling companies, if they want to protect their reputation, to be prepared to comply with and to abide by the social responsibility standards that we will insist on in this country. That is what we offer online firms which come to this country.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following the previous question, I, too, read the press report suggesting that the Government are seeking to make Britain a centre for online gambling and I am much more concerned about that than even Front-Bench Members. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to think about reversing that policy and not make Britain a centre for online gambling?

Tessa Jowell: As I think the  Daily Mail pointed out today when it made that claim[Hon. Members: And  The Times.] And  The Times. It is certainly not our intention that we become a world centre for online gambling. Do not confuse that, Mr. Speaker, with our aim to get online gambling companies to register and to come on-shore. If we do that, we will have better powers and those companies will be in a better position to act in a socially responsible way, so we will ensure that, in a rapidly increasing area of gambling, we can keep down the proportion of problem gambling. We are not marketing the UK as a centre. We are marketing the UK as having the toughest regulatory regime in the world and as being the safest place for people to gamble. It is a public interest test.

Licensing Act

Andrew Turner: If she will make a statement on the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003.

Shaun Woodward: It is still too early to draw firm conclusions, but indications are that the new licensing regime has been successfully implemented and is working well.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Why do certain activities on the Isle of Wight, such as the Chale show, the county show, the garlic festival and other very attractive festivals, find themselves regulated both under the Licensing Act and under the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971, despite my having been told by the Minister's predecessorthe present Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)before the Licensing Bill became law that it would impliedly repeal parts of the Isle of Wight Act? Which sections have been repealed?

Shaun Woodward: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am glad that the Chale show, notwithstanding the difficulties that were faced, was a success. None the less, I recognise the problems faced as a result of the Isle of Wight Act and the Licensing Act both having to be navigated by those putting on the show. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my predecessor wrote to him in 2002, setting out the Department's view that there would be implied repeal of elements of the Isle of Wight Act as a result of the new legislation. I have asked my officials to look into the matter and I am happy to meet him to discuss it because, as he knows, the intention behind the 2003 Act was to simplify the procedures, not to make things more difficult.
	I therefore remind the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the new Licensing Act, we were able to reduce from 174 to 20 the number of forms, licences, notices, certificates and declarations. We managed wholly to repeal 23 Acts of Parliament relating to licensing and all associated regulations, and 69 Acts in England and Wales were reduced. Nine licensing regimes were reduced to a single regime. However, there was clearly a problem in the Isle of Wight and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to see what we can do so that the problems faced by the Chale horticultural show can, if possible, be avoided in future.

Adrian Bailey: My hon. Friend will remember the dire warnings about the implementation of the new Licensing Act leading to an increase in drunken violence. Can he confirm the figures given to me by West Midlands police, who say that more arrests were made this summer in one day at Ascot than during the whole World cup period in the centre of Birmingham nightlife, Broad street?

Shaun Woodward: It is always difficult to account for particular behaviour at major events such as Ascot. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to inform me of any individuals from the House who may have taken part in those events. The overall evidence on the implementation of the Act is being collated at the momentit is important to look not at a particular moment or day but at a long periodbut early anecdotal evidence from the police and the local licensing authorities is that, by and large, it is successful and is having a positive effect on crime and disorder. Of course, there will always be exceptions.

Roger Williams: The Brecon access group in my constituency, whose purpose is to promote access for disabled people to public buildings and private businesses, complains that when licensed premises undertake substantial refurbishment the opportunity is not often taken to make reasonable adjustment, as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to allow disabled people to use their facilities. Will the Minister see whether anything can be done through the advice notes to local authorities or by changing the legislation to make sure that licensed premises are available to disabled people and that they can enjoy them in the same way as more able people?

Shaun Woodward: Of course. I hope we have reached a point in our society in 2006 when it does not require regulation and licensing to encourage responsible people out there to make sure that access is available to all, regardless of disability.

Jessica Morden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Newport city centre, robbery, assault and violence are down this year by 40 per cent., which Gwent police attribute to the new licensing laws and the staggered opening hours? Will he join me in congratulating the police, the council and the licence holders on their teamwork, which has cut city centre crime?

Shaun Woodward: Absolutely. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, but the picture is not always so rosy. As we know, there have been problems with young people, particularly. The new licensing regime has enabled the police to deal more effectively with those. Police can issue 80 fines to those who act in a drunk and disorderly manner, and they have not been afraid to use them, with 8,000 fixed penalty notices being issued during the enforcement campaign last Christmas alone.

Robert Goodwill: Is the Minister aware that many tourists on the north Yorkshire coast this summer have been disappointed at not being able to have a drink in small hotels and guesthouses because the owners of those premises have been put off by the cost and the bureaucracy involved, so the tourists have to go into seaside towns to other institutions where there may have been a lot of trouble in the past, which have longer opening hours and more problems?

Shaun Woodward: I am not aware of the specific venues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. By and large, however, the effect of the Licensing Act has been to simplify procedures, although there are problems in relation to the forms. We have been considering the length and complexity of the forms that have had to be filled in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about the establishments of which he speaks, I will be more than happy to look into the specifics.

Clive Efford: I welcome the new measures under the licensing law. Will my hon. Friend review the level of fines for convenience stores that have alcohol licences and which are found guilty of selling alcohol to people under the age of 16? There is growing concern about the matter in my constituency. The minimum fine is too low. If it were raised to 2,000, so that a store could opt to go to a magistrates court and risk a higher fine, the measure would become more self-policing and we would be more effective in stopping young people gaining access to alcohol.

Shaun Woodward: As my hon. Friend knows, the Licensing Act has already increased fines for selling alcohol to under-18s from 1,000 to 5,000. That is welcome. However, he rightly draws attention to another aspect. He may wish to know that, as well as the review that will take place after 12 months, I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), are meeting the trade this afternoon to discuss those matters. We will continue to keep them under review, because under-age drinking and the problems associated with it are a menace in our society, and it is the job of Government and all parties in the House to deal with it.

Casinos

Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on progress in selecting the one regional casino by the Casino Advisory Panel.

Anne Main: If she will make a statement on the selection process for new casinos under the Gambling Act 2005.

Richard Caborn: Before I answer the questions, I am sure the whole House will join me in remembering Lord MonroHector Monrowho, sadly, died on 30 August. He held many ministerial posts, but the one that he held with the greatest pleasure was the one that I now hold, as the Minister with responsibility for sport. He and I have something in common: we were both brought back from Australia, where we were watching rugby. He was brought back in the 1970s when he was manager of the Scottish team, and I was brought back in 2003 when I wanted to watch England win the World cup. The great game of rugby union binds us together.
	The independent casino advisory panel is continuing with its work, and remains on track to make its recommendations at the turn of the year.

Andrew Robathan: I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about Hector Monro.
	Can the Minister confirm that it is alleged that people are being recruited and trained as croupiers in the area around Greenwich to work in the former millennium dome? If that is the case, does it not suggest that the entire selection process may be a farce? Can he state categorically that some deal was not cooked up on a dude ranch somewhere in America, and that that is not a means of getting rid of that white elephant, the dome, which has remained an embarrassment to the Government?

Richard Caborn: Can I say very clearly that the panel that is now looking into the siting of these casinos is independent? What the hon. Gentleman has just said is very serious. We have brought together an independent panel under Professor Crow, and what the hon. Gentleman says brings Professor Crow's integrity into disrepute. That is very serious. Professor Crow will make the decision, and that decision will come back to the House, and if the hon. Gentlemanor, indeed, any other Memberwants to question that decision of the panel led by Professor Crow when it comes back to the House, they have the right to do so. There will be an affirmative vote of this House to determine where those sites will be. Members ought to remember this: we have brought in an independent person of the integrity of Professor Crow to head this panel, and to impugn his integrity in this House is unacceptable.

Anne Main: I noticed that the Minister made a slip of the tongue about sites. Stephen Crow, head of the panel, said:
	How are we going to make up our minds? I don't know.
	Given that we might have more than one site brought back, will the Minister select just one of those sites, or will the House have a chance to vote on all of them?

Richard Caborn: There will be a recommendation to the House on one regional site, eight large sites and eight small. As for how that decision is brought about, the hon. Lady might wish to look at the Gambling Act 2005, as she will find guidance in it. The panel has been set up under it, and there will be a recommendationand the final decision will be taken by this House.

Clive Betts: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the whole process for selecting a site for a regional casino has to be seen to be transparent and fair. Is it his understanding of the process that the casino advisory panel will listen to representations from local authorities and will then make a recommendation to this House about which local authorities should be chosen, and that the local authority should then decide, through a proper and open process, who the operator for that site will be? Does he therefore understand that it is slightly against at least the spirit of that process for local authorities to come forward with what are effectively joint proposals and joint bids from an operator who has already been selected in advance of the whole process being started?

Richard Caborn: I advise local authorities not to go down that course. There are three stages.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) would listenand, indeed, read the Acthe would not make comments as stupid as those he made to the Conservative party conference, but that is an aside, Mr. Speaker. I see you have a smile on your face, so you obviously appreciated the joke.
	The Gambling Commission will find out whether those applying to run a casino in our country are fit and proper to do so. It is then up to local authorities to site casinos in their areaanybody would think that we were haranguing local authorities, but we are not. They will come forward on two matters: premises licenses and planning under planning regulation 106. It is up to them to get the best possible deal. I advise any local authority not to pre-commit themselves. They have a fantastic negotiating positionif they get an offer from Professor Crow's committee in respect of siting.

Gordon Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key element in the deliberations of the panel should be the strength of local support and interest in a regional casino bid? If he does, will he note the comments of Professor Crow at the Blackpool examination that there were more people at that examination than at any of the others all together? Will he underline to Professor Crow and his associates the need to take into account the groundswell of public opinion when reaching their decision?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Blackpool. I will not go down the route that he wishes me to go down, other than to say that clear terms of reference have been set out. I think that what he mentions will be factored into that, because the terms of reference under which Professor Crow and his colleagues are operating would allow that. So the answer to the point he makes is yes, but equally that goes for every other local authorityand, indeed, lobbying groupas well.

Jo Swinson: In Scotland, there are an estimated 30,000 people with gambling problems. Does the Minister think that that figure is likely to increase or decrease if the one regional casino is sited in Glasgow?

Richard Caborn: In commissioning the Budd report, the issue was not casinos but online and internet gambling, which is the big growth area. The 2005 Act for the first time protects children and the vulnerable through an Act of Parliament, which the Gaming Act 1968 does not. I am absolutely confident that the Gambling Commission and the actions that we will take under the 2005 Act will protect the vulnerable and probably provide more protection than any other country in the world provides. Many countries are looking at the Gambling Commission, which we put on to the statute book, to see whether they can use the same model.

Hugo Swire: I suppose that the Minister's having paid so much attention to what I said at last week's highly successful Conservative party conference is a form of progress. However, it is astonishing that, just weeks away from the decision on the super-casino licence, we still do not know the criteria by which the pilot scheme will be judged a success or failure. Is not the reason that the Minister and his Department have already decided that they want more super-casinos, and will use any excuse to increase the number? The Minister said in an earlier answer that this matter would be brought before Parliament by the casino advisory panel, but he should be aware that, under clause 175 of the 2005 Act, the Secretary of State has the right to increase the number. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out increasing the number of super-casinos, even if the panel fails to recommend just one? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman's definition of success differs from mine, to be honest. If he thinks that the Conservative party conference was a success, he will have to go a long, long way before he occupies the seat occupied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If that conference was a success, he needs to keep on going. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government proposed eight regional casinos and the proposal was in the wash-up before the last general election. The Conservatives decided to come back with the proposal of one regional casino, which we accepted because we wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book in order to protect the vulnerable in our society. That is where it now stopsat one regional casinounless the hon. Gentleman says to the Government that the Conservatives want to change the proposal. The proposal is very clear: one regional casino, and eight large and eight small. That is what we agreed before the election, and that is the basis on which the 2005 Act went through.  [Interruption.] Absolutely no: there will be one regional casino, and eight large and eight smallunless the Opposition propose an alternative that is acceptable to us, up to a figure of eight.

Skateboarding

Ashok Kumar: If she will make a statement on Government support for skateboarding as a sport for young people.

David Lammy: We recognise the important role that skateboarding and other non-traditional sporting activities can play in attracting young people to participate in sport. Sport England advises that, over the last 10 years, skateboarding has received some 1.5 million in lottery funding.

Ashok Kumar: Recently, I had the opportunity to open a skate plaza in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Middlesbrough council and Councillor Coppinger, who has been the driving force behind this project, which has been of great benefit to the community? Does my hon. Friend also recognise that young people indulging in sport is one way to keep them occupied, instead of getting involved in antisocial behaviour?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, and we want to associate ourselves with, and to encourage, such informal sports. I congratulate Middlesbrough on having one of the best skateboarding facilities for young people in the region. That is precisely what we need to avoid antisocial behaviour in our communities, and my hon. Friend and Middlesbrough council need to be congratulated in that regard.

Alistair Burt: May I publicly thank Mr. Ken Lynch of Sandy, who works tirelessly with youngsters in my constituency to identify and provide facilities such as skate parks for the many who wish to practise the sport responsibly? However, may I share his concern with the Minister that, when these facilities are planned, enough attention should be paid to securitylighting and closed circuit televisionin order to protect such youngsters, who are often bullied by others who want to disrupt them? I should be grateful if the Minister ensured that, when these facilities are planned, proper attention is paid to security to encourage youngsters, so that they are not driven away by those who are out to spoil their sport.

David Lammy: Yes; in a context in which Sport England has put more money into providing more skateboard parks and we now have a play fund of 155 million for even more skateboard parks, I will be happy to discuss that with Sport England.

Khalid Mahmood: I welcome the Minister's announcement, but what steps are his Department taking to encourage teenagers to have a say in the process of obtaining facilities in their local area and to engage with those youngsters so that they can be kept away from antisocial behaviour?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. He knows that the Government will shortly be introducing a local government White Paper and appreciates that, while Sport England wants to ensure that it consults young people on its plans, a large part of sporting provision is run by local authorities. I hope that, when we debate the White Paper, we can take those issues forward.

English Heritage

James Gray: What plans she has to visit properties managed by English Heritage.

David Lammy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Stonehenge last month. She will be speaking at the launch of the English Heritage report on 15 November and will visit more English Heritage sites in an official and private capacity by the end of the year.

James Gray: My constituency probably has more listed buildings than almost any other area of England and I was pleased recently to welcome both the chairman and chief executive of English Heritage to the underground bunkers in Corsham and to Brunel's famous Box tunnel, but is the Minister not concerned that, if the rather peculiar plan to bring in a hybrid Bill to de-list and then to demolish to Commonwealth Institute building in London is brought forward, that will set a worrying precedent for buildings at risk across England?

David Lammy: We are having discussions on the Commonwealth Institute, but those discussions are unique. There is no other building whose sale and listing have a bearing on education in the Commonwealth. We clearly have a responsibility in that regard and that is why we are having the discussions.

Robert Key: It is always a pleasure to welcome the Minister to the Stonehenge world heritage site in my constituency and it was a pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State last month, together with the chairman of English Heritage and the Roads Minister, and, significantly, a Treasury official. Are the Government fully apprised of the importance of the development of the visitor centre at Stonehenge, of getting the decision on the road right and of the fact that this is about the Olympics as well? It is not in competition with the Olympics but should be seen as complementary to the Olympics, as showcasing the best of English Heritage properties to the world.

David Lammy: There is no doubt that Stonehenge is a great iconic site and incredibly important to Britain's heritage, and that is why the Secretary of State made her visit recently and why I too have visited it in my present capacity. The hon. Gentleman will know that, because of the huge cost implications in relation to that site, there was a review that will be considered by Ministers shortly, and that must be right. I make no comment in relation to the planning matters raised, because those have been called in by the local authority.

Derek Wyatt: Shurland hall in my constituency is a building in which Henry VIII had one of his honeymoons. Ten years ago, English Heritage put up special scaffolding at a cost of 200,000, probably more than the building was worth at the time; at one point I asked whether that could be listed. I am pleased to say that we have won a 300,000 award from English Heritage to restore the faade of this fantastic hall. When it is finished, would the Minister would come and open it?

David Lammy: It is generous of my hon. Friend to invite me to the scene of Henry VIII's honeymoon, and I will surely visit in the coming months.

Mark Field: I appreciate the problems with regard to Stonehenge that the Minister pointed out, but may I try to ensure that it is predominantly a heritage rather than just a transport-related matter, and that the heritage rather than transport issues hold sway as far as possible? It is disappointing that, in the Secretary of State's first five years at the helm, she failed to visit a single English Heritage property in an official capacity, as the Minister said in a parliamentary answer on 6 April. As well as her endeavours to acquaint herself with English Heritage property, will she ensure that its vacant chairmanship is taken up by a Government appointee not as closely associated with the Labour party as the incoming chairmen of Ofcom and Sport England?

David Lammy: Surely the Opposition can do better than that. The Secretary of State is the first Secretary of State for 20 years to introduce heritage protection legislation, which will be introduced shortly. She is the first to begin a discussion about the public value of heritage, which she began last year in her essay and which led to a huge conference in January with the heritage community. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State and others will decide the future chairmanship of English Heritage in an appropriate, transparent and open way.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked

Inspired Campaign

Tony Baldry: What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with English Heritage on its Inspired campaign.

Stuart Bell: The Church Heritage Forum, of which the commissioners are members, has welcomed Inspired. The forum's chairman, the Bishop of London, has also said that the repair needs of historic churches are much greater than the sum that English Heritage has asked for.

Tony Baldry: Is there not an urgent need to maintain and repair many crumbling cathedrals, churches and chapels? While congregations and local communities must play a role, the sheer scale of the sums involved means that the Treasury also has a part to play. Is it not disappointing that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has seemingly not signed up to English Heritage's Inspired campaign?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who often raises the matter in the House. He is right that the upkeep of our magnificent church buildings should be properly reflected in funding received from the state, and the Church Heritage Forum and the Archbishops Council are constantly exploring possibilities with a number of Government contacts. The interest that this House takes in that Church-state relationship and getting more money into our churches is welcome.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not true that a tiny fraction of the money spent on that ridiculous dome, and an even tinier fraction of the money that will be spent on the Olympics, would ensure that all our cathedrals and churches were safe for a further 100 years?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It would be a sad day for the Church if the promotion of the wonderful Olympic games in London led to it suffering through not getting the appropriate funds.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act

Greg Hands: What recent measures the commission has taken to ensure constituency accounting units' compliance with the disclosure requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission has informed me that it issues advice and guidance on which accounting units are required to submit a statement of accounts and on the format and content of those submissions. Additionally, it provides advice through central party organisations on the reporting of donations. The commission checks all the statutory information that it receives to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies, and all those arising are addressed with the relevant parties and accounting units.

Greg Hands: PPERA states that constituency parties with incomes more than 25,000 must declare their accounts. At the end of the last financial year, 308 Conservative associations, 93 Liberal Democrat associations and only 38 Labour associations had filed their accounts. The worst offender was Hammersmith and Fulham constituency Labour party. Regardless of political party, what progress is the commission making in ensuring compliance with the 2000 Act?

Peter Viggers: The accounts that Hammersmith and Fulham Labour party submitted for 2005 were received on 12 July 2006, and they are in a satisfactory form. My hon. Friend makes a fair point, as a considerable number of accounting units have not reported on time. However, the Electoral Commission takes the view that it is appropriate to have a sense of proportion about this, and that the criminal penalties available in legislation are disproportionate. The commission has the option either of reprimanding the accounting unit or of seeking to impose a criminal sanction against the treasurer, who will often be an untrained amateur. The commission has therefore made recommendations for a more enforceable scheme, and its review is expected to report in December.

Voting

Peter Bone: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the ease of voting.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that research conducted after the 2006 local elections in England found that the overwhelming majority of voters and non-voters, including 97 per cent. of those who voted at a polling station, found the voting process easy and convenient.

Peter Bone: In the Rushden East ward of my constituency, there have been two district council by-elections separated by a few months. In the second by-election, the number of polling stations was halved from what it had been for the first by-election. As a result, turnout in the second by-election was a third lower than in the first. What assessment has the Electoral Commission made of the need for more, not fewer, polling stations?

Peter Viggers: I am advised that special circumstances may have applied in the Wellingborough district council area. Portakabins were initially used and subsequently found to be inappropriate as regards access for the disabled, and the presence of a contractor outside one of the polling stations required using only one door instead of two. That may have had some special influence. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Electoral Administration Act 2006 requires local authorities to complete a review of the accessibility of polling districts and places throughout their area within 12 months after the provisions come into force. Local authorities must thereafter undertake further reviews within four years of the latest review.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the recent changes in electoral law passed by this House, it is likely that the counts for general and local elections will take place on the day after the close of poll instead of overnight immediately after the close of poll. Will the Electoral Commission consider a system whereby any voter can vote at any polling station and polling stations can always be sited in places convenient for large numbers of people, such as railway stations and supermarkets, so that we maximise the catch of people who can vote on their way to, or back from, where they usually go on their business?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman will realise that his proposal would require a great deal of technical application and development, but he has made his point and no doubt the Electoral Commission will take account of it.

George Young: How easy will it be for the Electoral Commission itself to vote if it does not have a chairman? My hon. Friend will know that the chairman's present term of office expires at the end of December, but no decision has been announced. Can he tell the House when that will take place?

Peter Viggers: Yes. Consideration is being given to the reappointment of a chairman and an announcement will be made in due course.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked

Access to Churches

Gordon Prentice: What assessment the commissioners have made of the insurance implications of keeping churches open to the public.

Stuart Bell: That is a matter for individual churches and their insurers and it depends largely on local circumstances. However, we know that the major insurer encourages churches to remain open during the day.

Gordon Prentice: That is the problem, is it not? We have 16,000 Church of England churches, more and more of which are closing their doors to the public outside service times because they fear vandalism and theft. Why is it not possible for churches to get a better deal by pooling their insurance premiums?

Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend says, it is unfortunate that many churches feel the need to close their doors to protect themselves. The major insurerEcclesiastical Insurancehas suggested that an active, well-visited church should deter arson, theft and vandalism. Advice on extra security measures is available and the insurance company provides a security marking system free of charge to all churches. However, my hon. Friend's suggestion is worth taking up with Ecclesiastical Insurance, and I will do so.

Richard Benyon: A benefice in my constituency consisting of eight churches, with a church roll of 2,500 people, has to find a diocesan contribution of 63,000 a yearand that is before it has started paying for insurance premiums and the maintenance and repair of buildings. Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the church authorities the funding crisis in rural parishes in constituencies such as mine that cannot afford the contributions that they have to make to the diocese as well as to the maintenance and insurance of these buildings?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for, and would be happy to make, the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I could not make it better than he has done and I congratulate him on that. He is right that there is a huge problem with church funding, which is reflected in the questions that I am asked in the House, between what the state and what the Church can provide. We have seen many articles in the newspapers about cathedrals and churches that are in difficulty. The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is about that. We need to deal with the matter and, to do so, the state must take a much more proactive role.

Robert Key: There is a growing problem with insurance, whether the churches are open or closed during the day, arising from the increased ingress of bats. If only they would stay in the belfry, but they do not. In several churchesespecially in Norfolk, I am toldbat excrement is causing serious damage to the interior fabric of churches, at the cost of thousands of pounds and the great inconvenience of those who wish to worship.

Stuart Bell: Before the recess, I saw a bat in the House of Commons corridor. I do not know whether it had come from the Chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman's point is valid. The problems add to those that the Church already has with repairs, security and those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred.

Bishops

Mark Pritchard: What the average age is of Anglican bishops serving in England.

Stuart Bell: About 57. In parenthesis, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey the best wishes of the House of Commons to Archbishop Tutu on the occasion of his 75th birthday.

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bishops should be appointed on their spiritual and administrative attributes and skills, not time served? If so, what is the Church doing to recognise such skills earlier in those clergymen who have not served 20 or 30 years?  [Interruption.]

Stuart Bell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made the sedentary comment, Answer that if you can.
	The criteria for appointing bishops are in line with the hon. Gentleman's question. The criteria that he mentioned are in place. We are considering the average age of bishops, which is 57, and doing our best to bring forward those who are younger and can invigorate the Church, as those who are in their posts do.

David Winnick: I do not wish to sound critical but are not the bishops a bit on the young side? Will bishops be protected by the new laws on age discrimination? Surely it is right and proper that they too should be covered.

Stuart Bell: The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 makes compulsory retirement under 70 unlawful. I surmise that the same rule applies to the House.

Church of England Calendar

Stephen O'Brien: What plans the commissioners have to restore to the Church of England calendar the date of the accession of Her Majesty the Queen on 6 February as a day on which churches should fly the Union or St. George's flag.

Stuart Bell: There is nothing to stop churches flying flags on that date and some already do. If a flag is flown from churches in England, it should be the cross of St. George, preferably bearing the diocesan arms.

Stephen O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rule was changed in 2000 in the lectionary, which is the Church of England calendar for vicars and priests. Does he have any information about how the rule came to be applied, given that prayers are still an obligation every 6 February as the date of Her Majesty the Queen's accession both to the throne and as Supreme Head of the Church of England? Would it be possible to publish the minutes to ensure that there was no political correctness or political interference in the decision?

Stuart Bell: I am happy to refer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question back and give him a written response. The anniversary of the sovereign's accession is observed annually by the Church, but it does not form part of the ecclesiastical calendar. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that it might, as his question suggests. I shall pass that view to the Liturgical Commission, which is responsible for such matters. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman about the publication of minutes.

Church of England Estate

Bob Russell: How much was received in 2005-06 by the Church of England from the sale of land and property for residential and other development purposes; and how much of this was spent on new buildings and modernising buildings for church and associated purposes.

Stuart Bell: A wide range of Church of England bodies, including the commissioners, own land and property and it is not possible to give a single figure covering receipts for the whole Church. However, the Church Commissioners' total property sales in 2005 were worth 242 million.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as a point of principle, that, if land in a parish is sold for housing while in the same parish the church is raising a public appeal to modernise its church hall, the least that could be done would be to pay for those improvements from the proceeds of the sale of any land that had been owned by the parish?

Stuart Bell: The two sets of circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not mutually exclusive. In relation to property sales and to the Church's expenditure in 2005, the commissioners spent about 100 million on pensions, 31.5 million on parish mission and ministry support, 21 million on bishops and 6.6 million on cathedrals. The parish land to which the hon. Gentleman refers might not be within the domain of the Church Commissioners.

Young People in Care

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the children in care Green Paper, which I have published today. Copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library. At the heart of the Green Paper lies one simple presumption: that the aspirations of the state for children in care should match those that each parent has for their own children. Right hon. and hon. Members recognise that moral imperative, and I should like to pay tribute to the associate parliamentary group on children in and leaving care, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), for highlighting many of the issues that the Green Paper seeks to resolve. They have vociferously pointed out that this area has received too little attention for too long.
	We know the depressing statistics. Children in care are five times less likely to achieve five good GCSEs, and nine times more likely to be expelled from school. One quarter of people in prison today have spent some time in our care system. This Government have introduced a number of measures to try to address the complex problems of children in care. Since 1997, we have invested almost 1 billion in the quality protects initiative to improve outcomes for children in care. We have taken steps to encourage adoption instead of care, and we have placed a duty on local authorities to improve educational outcomes for this specific group of children. However, this has clearly not been enough.
	Today's Green Paper builds on those efforts and the implementation of Every Child Matters, which for the first time provides the infrastructure to deal with this issue in a co-ordinated way. The first priority must be to prevent children from slipping into care when there are family alternatives. We must take effective pre-emptive and preventive action, so that no child can be sucked into the system by default. If there is a chance that a child can be safely restored to a healing family environment, we must take it. We will trial a new kind of intensive family therapy to address parents' problems while ensuring that children are more than just helpless bystanders. We will seek to get to the heart of the domestic problems, tackling the most difficult situations of abuse, neglect or violence with a mix of conciliation and targeted care. To raise our knowledge of what works in this new area, we will create a national centre of excellence to share experience and knowledge.
	Secondly, the care system must act more like a traditional loving family, with all the extra responsibility that that implies. The fact that a child is in care does not mean that he or she should be deprived of the emotional support and development that most children, thankfully, can rely on. The state must ensure that children are always in the best hands, constantly supported by continuous guidance and motivation, investing in their futures and shaping their decisions.
	The care profession already comprises many dedicated, experienced professionals. However, we need to ensure that all carers reach the standard of the best. We will begin a round of specially tailored recruitment campaigns. We will also take steps to match foster carers with children more intelligently, fitting the complex needs of the child with the specialised skills of the carer. A new, tiered framework of qualifications, payments and standards will be used to steer these difficult decisions. By taking more trouble to get it right first time, we will avoid children being bounced from placement to placement, which is so damaging to them personally and disruptive to their studies.
	Thirdly, we must ensure that children in care receive an excellent education. Results have steadily improved for children in care, but still nine out of 10 do not achieve five good GCSEs. To ensure that they benefit from access to sport, music and drama, which instil cultural values and equip them with social capital, we will encourage local authorities to open their sports centres and leisure clubs to children in care free of charge.
	Social workers will receive budgets to spend on the personal needs of each child, allowing them the flexibility to find money quickly when a child needs extra support such as speech or language therapy.
	We will appoint a newa dreadful phrase, I know, Mr. Speakervirtual head teacher, who will, I reassure Members, be a real person, in every area, with overarching responsibility for driving up results among local children in care. We will guarantee catch-up lessons. With the passage of the Education and Inspections Bill, we will also require schools to take in children in care, even if the school is full, so children are elevated to the best schools rather than dumped in the worst.
	We will do more to prevent children in care from being excluded. Nothing is more damaging to a child's chances of success than moving school after they have made their GCSE choices. Children who change school after year 10 drop around one and a half grades per subject, so eight C grades become four D and four E grades. We will therefore create a presumption that children in care will not move schools in years 10 and 11.
	When children have to move home, we will do all that we can to avoid them moving school as well. We have proposed that, in such circumstances, and where practicable, children in care will get free transport to their existing school rather than move to a new one.
	Fourthly, we need to ensure that children leave care in a measured way. Too often, children in care feel that the system spits them out on their 16th birthday. Only 6 per cent. make it to university, compared with 38 per cent. of their peer group. We must ensure that children get a soft landing when they leave the system, particularly during those crucial years when decisions are made about their future.
	We will give every child in care a right to decide when they leave the system and the chance to stay with their foster families up to the age of 21, or longer if they are continuing in education. We will establish a new 2,000 bursary to encourage them to attend university, and we will also put an extra 100 into their child trust fund for every year they spend in care.
	Parenting is a weighty responsibility and institutions need to be held accountable, just as individuals would be. Every local authority will be subject to regular children in care inspections by Ofsted. My Department will make it a specific priority to improve the academic performance of children in care, and Ministers will hold an annual stock-take to review progress.
	Too often, decisions about children in care are taken without listening to those with most at stakethe children themselves. Local authorities will be encouraged to set up children in care councils so that the voices of children in care are properly heard. For this Green Paper, we will ensure that our consultation stretches right into children's homes to connect with people who have been through the system.
	This is a Green Paper with as many ideas as prescriptions. We recognise that during open consultation many further ideas will emergeindeed, from Members on both sides of the House, but particularly from those who have been in care and the dedicated professionals who work in this area, day in and day out. They are not to blame for the collective failure that this report highlights: we are.
	We need to provide a more co-ordinated approach to these entrenched issues, ensuring that our care system is focused less on systems and more on care. These children are our responsibility. We cannot continue to fail them.

David Willetts: We welcome the statement, as the evidence on the plight of our cared-for children is deeply shocking. Fifty-four per cent. of them fail to get a single qualification from school. Twenty-five per cent. of people in prison were children in care. The system is letting down the nation's children in the greatest need.
	The Secretary of State paid tribute to the all-party group. We should also pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Barnardo's and the NCH, and to  The Times Educational Supplement, in helping to keep up the pressure to tackle this problem. Over the past 10 years, various attempts have been made to tackle it: initiatives such as quality protects, public spending up to 1.9 billion, and targets. I remind the Secretary of State of the target set in 2002:
	to substantially narrow the gap between the educational attainment and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006.
	That was supposed to mean that no more than 10 per cent. should reach school-leaving age without having sat a GCSE. In 2005, however, 36 per cent. of children in care left school without having sat a single GCSE. Sadly, the Government's targets have not been met, and, despite the increases in public expenditure, the problem persists, as the Secretary of State openly acknowledged.
	We therefore welcome many of the Secretary of State's further proposals today. Is he confident, however, that there is the capacity to deliver the initiatives? Initiatives are endlessly brought to the House, but all too often there is not the organisation and resource to make them happen. Is he confident that local authorities, which, in reality, will bear the brunt of many of his proposed initiatives, have the capacity to deliver them? Is he aware of what is nothing less than a crisis in the recruitment of social workers, with a 10 per cent. shortage in London and the south-east? It is all too easy to kick social workers, and blame them, but the initiatives he describes will work only if we have more social workers. We should not be kicking and blaming social workers; we need to recruit more. We also have a shortage of 10,000 foster carers. With such a shortage, how can we deliver his initiatives? We need that capacity, and we heard nothing from him today about how that will be achieved.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State is right about the need to enable children to stay on longer in care if possible. Will he admit that another example of well-intentioned initiatives going wrong is the Government's Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000? It has become part of the problem, creating a perverse incentive for local authorities to get children out of care early, so that they do not have to write cumbersome pathway plans. That is the regrettable and unpredicted effect of his legislation.
	I must admit to the Secretary of State that I am not quite sureand I do not know if he knowswhat a virtual head teacher is. I very much look forward to him telling us. I think of it in a simple and practical way. Who will take responsibility for turning up at parents' evening to ask how a child in care is doing? Will it be the social worker or the new virtual head teacher? If, as a result of his proposals, there is even more confusion about that, we will have gone backwards rather than forwards.
	There are also some wider issues. Many children in care have troubled and chaotic lives, and many of them have come from families with troubled and chaotic lives. All too often, Government schemes, instead of providing some stability and security, have mirrored the chaos and confusion from which many of those children have suffered. It is so important that they have more stability.
	If the Secretary of State's proposals do indeed mean fewer school moves and fewer different placements for a child in care, we will certainly support them. However, I should be grateful if he explained how he will ensure greater continuity of education when we know that the average move to a new placement involves a journey of 20 miles. If he is to provide more specialist placements, how can he be confident that they will be nearby, and how can we be confident that a child will retain contacts with neighbourhood and family?
	The Secretary of State will of course recognise that even when a child is moved out of its immediate family, there might be members of the extended family who can take some responsibility for it. As we know from his extraordinary personal experience, the Secretary of State was not in care because members of his family were willing to help him. Is he aware that extended family members sometimes feel that social workers are excluding them from decisions about the child's future? I have heard from grandparents, for example, who wished to be involved in fostering or even adopting a child, and who feel that social workers have ignored the opportunity that they could have provided. Will more be done in that regard?
	The statement is welcome. If the state is to take on the enormous responsibility of caring for children, it must try its best to match the commitment, stability and emotional support that a family can provide. If the proposals that the Secretary of State has announced will achieve those objectives, we will support them.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the evidence is shocking, and absolutely right to say that the problem persists. I have not tried to make political points at the Dispatch Box. I have said that this is our responsibility, we are in government, I am the Secretary of State, and the buck stops here.
	We must measure what is happening to children in care, and until the late 1990s there was very little such measurement. The quality protects initiative, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, invested some 1 billion in additional funds, and some of the statistics have improved; but an increase from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent. in the number of children gaining five GCSEs is not good enough. There is no need for any party-political points to be made. I should like to think that Members in all parts of the House, and certainly the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), are determined to tackle the problem.
	That brings me to the issue of capacity. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned social workers. We are already involved in a project called options for excellence, which aims to give social workers the right professional status, reduce wastage rates and ensure that social workers continue to work with children. It is rather like some of what we tried to do for teachers in the 1990s. An interim report has already been published, and the final report should be published shortly. We certainly do not want to stigmatise social workers, which is why I have gone out of my way to say that the problems we face in relation to children in care are not the fault of the dedicated professionals who work with them day in, day out.
	We need to consider whether we should give foster carers a salary. That is a specific proposal in the Green Paper. Another is the proposal for three tiers of social workers: one to deal with the least difficult cases, then another, and a top tier dealing with the most difficult problems and receiving the support, training and salary that will enable them to do that.
	I do not agree that the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 has made no difference. The statistics show that there are still too many children in care who are not in employment, education or training, but the figure of 46 per cent. before the Act was introduced now stands at 59 per cent., so there has been an improvement of 13 percentage points.
	The hon. Gentleman challenged me to define a virtual head teacher. I will have a go. The idea is for a local education authority to employ someonemost likely a retired head teacher or a head teacher who has moved on to other employmentwho will do the job for the whole authority. That person will cross school boundaries to ensure that children in care are being properly looked after and dealt with in the school system.
	The point about parents' eveningsa poignant point that I believe features in the Green Paperwas made by a child in care, who said, Nobody turns up on my parents' evening; there is nobody there. We want to ensure that someone is there. If the child in care has a foster carer, the foster parent should be thereand most foster parents would agree that that is part of being a foster parent. If the child is based in an institution, his or her social worker should be present. That is all very much part of the plans that we have set out.
	The dedicated teacher ideaI believe that it emerged some years ago under the previous Governmentcan be made to work more effectively and it also connects with our ideas about advocacy. The problem with children in care not having a lead professional to look after them can be tackled in a number of ways.
	The penultimate point is about stability, and I agree with the hon. Member for Havant that it is the key word. If there is a mantra that runs through it all, it is stability. We have to get the placements right in the first place, which is part of the tiered approach. Part of the reason why children move around so much is the fact that the original placement could have been handled better and dealt with more intelligently.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point was about members of the family and social workers. It is right to look carefully into that. Social workers should not be in a position whereby the extended family cannot convince them about the care that they could provide. Children themselves are sometimes old enough and able to articulate their views and legislation already contains the presumption that the child's views should not only be heard, but taken into account, yet that does not seem to be happening. All those points need to be addressed. I accept that, as with other Green Papers, many other ideas will emerge as the consultation proceeds.

Ann Coffey: As my right hon. Friend says, early intervention in children's lives is crucial to prevent them from coming into care in the first place. What can make a difference is good-quality child care from birth, which some parents cannot provide on their own. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in implementing the Childcare Act 2006, it is important for families where children are at risk that free and good-quality child care is available in children's centres to support non-working parents and to improve children's early-life care?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friendmy young hon. Friendis absolutely right. One of the problems identified in the Green Paper is the availability of child care, but it is also important to ensure that foster carers are aware of Sure Start and children's centres. We are having some problems ensuring that Sure Start gets through to the most difficult-to-reach groups, which is an important element of the question.

Sarah Teather: May I begin by welcoming the Green Paper and thanking the Secretary of State for the tone of his statement? It deals with an area where Government policy has failed in the past, but I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State's personal commitment to tackling the issue. There is much good news in the Green Paper and I want to acknowledge it before questioning the Secretary of State further.
	I wholeheartedly welcome the announcement in the Green Paper that the designated teacher is to be put on a statutory footinga matter that he did not mention in his statement but which appears in the Green Paper and for which we have called for some time. I also welcome the announcement that young people will be able to remain with their foster family until they are 21. Many young people in care have had a fractured experience of education, meaning that it often takes them much longer to complete their studies. The extension of fostering recognises that and the fact that care in a family setting does not normally end at 16. Similarly, I want to welcome the increased emphasis on academic achievement of young people in care, through priority in admissions and bursaries for university.
	Surely, however, one way to encourage schools to take young people who may struggle is to target money on the pupil. Why have the Government not adopted a pupil premium to ensure that schools can provide the extra help that vulnerable young people need? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new requirement on schools to prioritise admissions of looked-after children will apply throughout the school year and not just at the beginning?
	I welcome the proposals for training and salaries for foster carerssomething that we have called for some time. I also welcome the acknowledgment that too often potential carers from within the family are overlooked. Are the Government looking at better allowances for kinship care? When placements change, the only stable figure is often the social worker. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is less churn of appointed social workers for individual children?
	The Green Paper announces that the Government will encourage councils to provide free leisure activities for young people. Will the extra money be provided to councils to ensure that that is possible, even where services have been outsourced to another provider? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the extended schools programme will be available free of charge to looked-after children? Do the Government have any plans to reintroduce the programme that provided foster homes with a home computer?
	Finally, one of the greatest tragedies of looked-after children is, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, the fact that so many, so early in their lives, find themselves on the wrong side of the law. It is perhaps ironic that immediately after this statement there will be another one on overcrowding in prisons. Let us hope that this Green Paper marks a new chapter for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for her welcome for many parts of the report. I shall pick out the issues that she raised when she went beyond praise, and important issues they are. The first was the issue of targeting money on individuals. The whole problem of children in care is that there are so few of them that they do not register on the system. Part of the idea behind the virtual head teacher and Ofsted inspecting every school in the local area every three years is to ensure that children in care do register. I do not think that this is an issue about finances. Martin Narey, the chairman of Barnardo's, made it clear this morning that, unlike most political issues with which he has dealt, this is an issue about systems rather than finance. That is at the core of the problem in terms of the help that we give to children in schools.
	I will take away the issue of better allowances for kinship care; it has not been drawn to my attention and there may be a legal point. However, it fits well with the idea that if there is an opportunity to use a family member to avoid a child slipping into care, we ought to grasp it.
	Ensuring less churn is part of the current work on social workers' pay and conditions. We must look at how social workers can bid for work, with the local authority being the commissioner. Social care workers often want to stay dedicated to looking after children but too often are diverted on to paperwork and bureaucracy. If social workers can continue to do what they want it will help with churn.
	The issues of home computers and free extended schools will be addressed as the Green Paper goes through. They were very good suggestions, if I may say so.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Sometimes quite simple things can make an enormous difference. Will my friend have a word with the Department for Work and Pensions about benefit offices' increasing use of telephone conversations held in open offices? This constitutes a barrier for young people who often do not want to discuss difficult questions about their private lives in front of an office full of benefit claimants.

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend

Gwyneth Dunwoody: No, hon. Friend.

Alan Johnson: I did not even get an honourable. My hon. Friend makes an important point about discussions with the DWP. I will raise it, just as we have raised the issue about foster carers who decide to keep a child past the age of 18 and find that this has an adverse effect on any benefits to which they are entitled. This issue needs to be discussed across Government, which is why the Green Paper was produced by a cross-Government working party.

Ann Widdecombe: I welcome many of the changes that the Secretary of State has announced, but it is one thing to enable and another to motivate. I talked recently to a foster mother who has fostered several children and who told me that when they reach 16 she advises them to stay on for sixth form and to be aspirational. However, along comes a social worker who tells them that now they are 16 they are entitled to independent accommodation and various benefits. It is not realistic to expect the degree of maturity required to choose education and pocket money over what looks like immediate independence. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the presumption will be that children will stay on, instead of the false motivation to leave education at 16?

Alan Johnson: The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The motivational aspect is one issue, and another is what is cheaper for the local authority. Persuading the child to move to an empty flat round the corner is less expensive than leaving them with foster parents. That is why we intend to pilot the presumption that a child will stay on past 16 in care and with their foster carers past 18. It is no good talking about the importance of listening to the child if they are insistent on moving away, but if we can get the motivational aspects right, we can create the climate in which the child can make a more mature decision, assisted by a social worker whom they have grown to trust because they have not been chopped and changed every five minutes. If we can achieve that, it will lead to different decisions being made by the child.

David Kidney: The care leavers whom I met last week were clear that they want to see more help for families, more foster carersso that they have a better choice and can stay in a stable home with the foster carer of their choicemore contact with social workers and more account taken of their views. The personal commitment of my right hon. Friend is beyond question, as is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families, but will he ensure that alongside the theme of stability that runs through the Green Paper he will add the themes of consistency of approach, by everybody who deals with the children and young people in that vulnerable group, and of listening to them? In the associate parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers that I chair, there are many youngsters who are bright, thoughtful and full of ideas to whom we should listen. They can certainly make a contribution to decisions on how they are looked after.

Alan Johnson: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families on her commitment to this issue. Continuity is part of the stability argument, because continuity leads to stability. I therefore agree with the need to ensure continuity and I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the voice of the child. The voices of children not in care, expressed through school councils and the like, are becoming an increasingly important way to instil citizenship and impart ideas about how democracy works at classroom level. That is even more important for children in care.
	My hon. Friend has a long background in this issue and he will have heard many heartbreaking stories about teachers telling the whole class that a child is in care. The teacher thinks that they are doing a good thing for the child, but it can be embarrassing or stigmatising for them. We need to listen to the child and what they think that the state and local authorities should do, because that is crucial to the whole exercise. The Green Paper will involve our talking to children in care now, and going into prisonsI say that in front of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in his placeand talking to prisoners who were in care to find out what went wrong. We have an enormous job to do in listening to the voice of those who have been in care and those who are in care at present.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State say something about what his Department can do to turn off the tap of the flow of children coming into care in the first place? I am talking about practical examples. For example, a number of community family trusts across the country face obstacles, but they are not looking for more money from the Government. Those organisations do very good work. Frankly, we are being left behind by other countries that are making inroads into the problem; divorce rates have halved in some American towns. Will the Secretary of State say a little about that subject, too?

Alan Johnson: One of the countries that we have looked at is the United States. That is where the idea of functional family therapy comes from, in which there is serious concentration on conciliation; people are given an intensive three months to tackle the problems. That is a specific idea from the US. There is a lot of best practice in local authorities around the country. I went to a centre on Meliot road in Lewisham last week with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families, where we saw an initiative that has been under way for the past 20 years. It is on a very small scale because of the size of the centre's accommodation, but it works very well, as it concentrates on the interventions that can be made to prevent children from slipping into care in the first place. A large part of the Green Paper is about how best practice, both on this issue and others, can be adopted by local authorities around the country.

Joan Humble: I very much welcome today's statement by my right hon. Friend, especially his emphasis on recruiting and training specialist foster carers, so that there is a match with the children for whom they care. In that context, will he pay special attention to the needs of children with disabilities, which are often profound? Recruiting people who can look after those children is a delicate, important task. They need specialist training and appropriate reimbursement, but they also need a package of measuresthey need adaptations to their home, so that they have a long-term resource for looking after children with disability. They are often a forgotten group in the care system, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will address their needs.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The idea is that third-tier foster carers will be trained, supported and given help, including with changes to the house, to enable them to deal with the most difficult cases, particularly of disabled children. My hon. Friend makesand has made over several yearsall those points. When she finds the time to look at the proposals, she will see that that is exactly what we are seeking to do.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the approach to education and the incentives to go on to university, but what further help with training opportunities can be offered to those care leavers who wish to enter employment? Could there be an entitlement, or incentives for employers to provide such opportunities?

Alan Johnson: First, of course, there is the 14-to-19 agenda, which seeks to address that issue for all children. Children in care would be a particular part of that. There is the entitlement to a level 3 qualification for all 19 to 25-year-oldsI am talking about general issues now, but I shall come on to the specific point about children in careand the initiatives around Train to Gain. In addition, we all await the Leach report. Specifically for children in care, we found once again in Lewisham, but it is also happening in Barnet and other local authoritiesthat there are initiatives through which children in care are offered help during that crucial period into work. They are offered training, andin Lewishama certain number of jobs. The effect is that Lewisham now has a lead officer who was herself in care for 14 years but came through that process, and now does a very good, worthwhile, professional job. There are all kinds of ideas out there to reduce the number of children in care who are not in employment, education or training, which must be an absolute priority of the Green Paper.

Sharon Hodgson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that children in care are our responsibility, and that we cannot continue to fail them. When children are in care, society is their parent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as good parents, giving children in care treats or rewards to aspire to good behaviour or good grades, as we do with our own children, may go a small way towards preventing them from turning to petty crime to obtain desirable items that our own children, and their peers, take for granted?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. I am not pretending that part of the 500 that we will give the social worker will go straight on the latest whizzy toysome of us would not give our own children that immediatelybut if the child wants music lessons or to go ice skating on a Saturday morning, the social worker has a sum of money that they can use rather than having to go through a bureaucratic paper chase. All kinds of ideas are emerging, such as those from the music profession for providing children in care with free music lessons. Proportionately, only very few children are in careabout 0.5 per cent. of the child populationso those things are do-able, if there is a co-ordinated infrastructure to allow an integrated approach, which is what Every Child Matters gives us.

Julie Kirkbride: I applaud the Secretary of State's desire to improve outcomes for looked-after children. He asks for ideas; is he considering the use of state or private boarding schools as a placement for those young people? That might improve the educational outcome of many and will add to their stability in many ways. It might also unleash more foster parents, including grandparents, who would be able to share care in the holidays and share the burden with the school.

Alan Johnson: Yes; we have a pilot with nine local authorities involving 50 boarding schoolsboth independent and statebecause that is seen as a possible addition to our armoury for looking after children in care.

Prison Estate

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement updating the House on developments in the prison population over the summer recess, and setting out the steps that I am taking to ensure the necessary prison capacity now and in the future.
	The Government have kept and will continue to keep our commitment to tackling crimereducing it by 35 per cent. in nine yearsand tackling the causes of crime. We have 2.5 million more jobs, the lowest level of unemployment for decades, 1,000 Sure Start centres and a significant reduction in social deprivationattention to the early years of life, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has just outlined. We shall continue that commitment to tackling both crime and the causes of crime.
	Public protection has always been our first priority. We have consistently supported tougher sentences in the course of protecting the public. Even today, in another place, we are tabling an amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to increase sentences for those caught in possession of blades or sharp instruments. That has been a constant message over the past decade and has been reflected in the growth in the proportion of people sent to prison and in the increase in the length of time for which they have been imprisonedin short, making the sentence and the punishment fit the crime more appropriately.
	To match that growth we have already built more than 16,000 prison places in nine yearsapproximately the same amount as the previous Conservative Government built in 18 years. Labour has built at twice the rate of the Conservatives. However, I have never hidden from the House our continuing need for more prison places to keep pace with the requirement.
	In July, I published the document Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority, in which I said that
	we will now build an additional 8,000 places and will keep under close review whether more are needed.
	That was set out in terms in the document. I said, too:
	We already have an additional 900 places under construction which are due to come onstream in Autumn 2007.
	I also said:
	We continue to imprison too many non-dangerous people with mental health problems who should be more effectively diverted into appropriate treatments at an early stage.
	I said:
	We will focus prison places for remand prisoners on those with the highest risk of re-offending. And we will work with the Lord Chief Justice and sentencers to ensure probation resources are targeted on those who most need them.
	Of course, hon. Members will have studied carefully and remembered those words. I remind the House of them in view of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks at the weekend. That remains my framework for addressing these issues in the medium term. However, it is the case that in the short term the prison population has risen sharply over the summer period and today stands at 79,819. I want to highlight two factors among others that specifically contributed to that increase over the summer and during the year.
	First, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is beginning to have a real effect. The House will know that the Act introduced tough new sentencesindeterminate sentencesto answer the public demand that life, where appropriate, should truly mean life for those judged to be a danger to the public. It also introduced more flexible community orders which would be a more effective alternative to prison for lower level offenders. The evidence so far is that our courts are making good use of indeterminate sentences so that dangerous people are staying in prison for longer, but they are not yet using community orders as fully as they might. That was the point emphasised this weekend by the Lord Chief Justice. That leads to increased pressure on prison places above that anticipated in the short term.
	Secondly, I made a commitment to the House to consider, find and detain as many of the previously unconsidered 1,013 foreign national prisoners as we could. In addition, I made a further commitment: I said that we would not release those foreign national prisoners who ought to be considered for deportation before such consideration had been completed and we would continue to detain them until that was done. Working through that process of dealing with the backlog while maintaining the deportation consideration for everyone who is released from prison will obviously contribute towards a higher prison population until the position is fully resolved. I shall return to details of that later in my statement.
	I want now to set out some of the actions that have been recommended to me since July to alleviate the pressure, and my response. It has been proposed to me that I should agree to the early release of prisoners into the community. I have considered that carefully, but I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time and I have rejected it. My view is that it should be used only in the last resort. I have, however, accepted the recommendations of the prison authorities in a number of other ways: first, in the re-roling of two women's prisons to take male prisoners, which is a sensible use of resources; secondly, in providing maximum flexibility within the prison estate to allow transfers to the open estate under severe restrictions in addition to those transferred as a matter of course. That measure was focused on lower-risk offenders serving short sentences for non-sexual or non-violent offences. Prisoners have been transferred only after careful risk assessment.
	Thirdly, we will improve processes for dealing with foreign national prisoners. I hope that by the spring of 2007 we will reach the position where the consideration of deportation for all foreign nationals will begin six months before the end of their sentences. We are making steady progress towards that as we deal with the backlog. That would ensure a reduced requirement for detention after the normal release date and therefore a reduced pressure on the prison population.
	Fourthly, I have today accepted the recommendation to implement the formal use of police cells, known as Operation Safeguard. Implementation will be on Thursday 12 October. The use of Safeguard is not ideal, but it is tried and it is tested. I am extremely grateful for the support that we have received from the Association of Chief Police Officers and from individual chief constables, as well from the Metropolitan police. Those measures should help to alleviate the position in the short term.
	In addition to that, I can today tell the House that on top of the medium and long-term proposals that I set out in our July plans and to which I referred earlier, I am also developing further measures. Specifically, we are in negotiations and consultation to convert a former Army barracks into prisoner accommodation. Similarly, we are in negotiations to utilise a former secure hospital in Ashworth East near Liverpool. We are expanding our immigration estate by 300 places by March 2007 and by a further 400 places by 2008, and we are exploring further innovative ways of extending immigration detention capacity for those who are detained as a result of immigration considerations, thus releasing pressure on the prison estate. We will, of course, continue to work closely with the private sector to get the best of what it can offer us, and we are continuing to encourage the courts to make effective use of bail, taking advantage of electronic tagging and alternative accommodation.
	I have also agreed an additional package of measures to improve the processing of foreign national prisoners. The immigration and nationality directorate has been taking a robust approach to the deportation of European economic area nationals, which has been defeated consistently in the courts. We will be changing the law to strengthen the link between criminality and deportation, but in the meantime we are no longer taking unproductive cases to the courts at the taxpayers' expense, with negative results. We are introducing an incentive scheme to persuade prisoners to return voluntarily to their own country. As we have always treated Irish citizens in a way which reflected the close historical, community and political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the existence of the common travel area, we are considering treating those citizens as a special case. In addition, the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, Lin Homer, is writing to the Home Affairs Committee today to provide a further breakdown of the progress made on the 1,013 prisoners released without consideration of deportation, and I will arrange for a copy of that to go into the Library of the House.
	Finally, in the longer term, we have already outlined plans for a prisons building programme for 8,000 places by 2012, and what is required beyond that will be given further consideration. We have also outlined plans for the greater use of community sentences, a scheme for payback to the community, and the rehabilitation of prisoners. I hope the measures that I have taken will alleviate the pressure in the short term and will complement the measures that I outlined to the House in my statement in July. I commend the measures to the House.

David Davis: May I start by thanking the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement? May I also take this chancemy first opportunityto congratulate him on his management of the alleged terrorist plot in August, which, if I may say so, I think he handled rather well? I am breathless in my admiration for the brazen way in which he claimed credit in his statement for the Tory initiative on increased penalties for knife crime, but of that more later.

John Bercow: It is called chutzpah.

David Davis: As my hon. Friend says, it is called chutzpah.
	Regrettably, I cannot say the same of the Government's sorry handling of the crisis in our prison system. There is no excuse for the catastrophe facing the country.
	In the past five years, the Government have received warning after warning that they were going to run out of cellswarnings from the Opposition, from the Prison Reform Trust, from their own advisers, and even from the chief inspector of prisons. In 2002, the lowest Home Office projection for the prison population by this year was 87,000, which is significantly higher than the capacity that it now has. When the Home Office could have acted to provide the necessary extra prison places, it failed to do so. Last year, long after it knew that it had a looming crisis, it even sold off a prison ship, cutting prison places by another 400.
	Even on the current Home Secretary's watch, the Department has been lackadaisical and slow to act. On 24 May this year, he was quoted in the press as saying:
	Protecting the public is my absolute priority.
	That is quite proper for a Home Secretary, yet I have a memorandum written by his private secretary only the day after, detailing a discussion of this crisis and considering the option of administrative releasethe early release of prisoners to free cells. We know that that proposal was quashed by No. 10, but why were not all the proposals that the Home Secretary has put before us today initiated then, in May, before we had a crisis? Why do we have to have a crisis to get action out of this Government?
	The Home Secretary's predecessors attempted to head off this problem by way of a combination of early release and community sentencing. To justify that, they pretended that community sentences were equally tough as punishments, deterrents and methods of rehabilitation. None of that is true. Nine out of 10 of those who go through Labour's flagship programmethe intensive supervision and surveillance programme or ISSPreoffend within two years. The Home Secretary talked about more tagging: 75 per cent. of young criminals on tags reoffend within one year.
	The Government's strategy for rehabilitation is not only failing outside prison; it is also being destroyed inside prison. Owing to prison overcrowding, in order to create places in individual prisons, vast numbers of transfers occur. Last year, there were 98,000 transfers between prisons among a population of 80,000. That means that prisoners are frequently uprooted before they complete courses designed to rehabilitate them and to equip them for an honest life in the outside world. As a result, under this Government reoffending rates for prison have gone up from 56 to 67 per cent. Does the Home Secretary accept that that increase in reoffending ratesthe greatest in the history of our prison systemis a direct result of the Government's neglect of this area?
	The various proposals that the Home Secretary has detailed might now be unavoidable, but only twothe action to remove or swap out foreign prisoners, and the re-roling of women's prisonsare relatively low risk and low cost. Both of them should have been done months or even years ago.
	Using police cells will be costly and will probably also be counter-productive. The last time this Government implemented Operation Safeguard, it cost more than 10 million, tied down policemen who should have been catching criminals rather than acting as part-time prison warders, and clogged up the police cells so that there was nowhere to put criminals who were caught. Does the Home Secretary accept that that will happen again this time, and if not why not?
	Does the Home Secretary recognise that by accepting the transfer of category C prisoners to open prisons he is sanctioning an increase in risk to public safety? He might talk about risk assessment, but he must know, even now, that this is a very imprecise technique. Otherwise, how does he explain the rash of murders committed by prisoners on probation and parole? Does he recognise that each of his proposals will buy him only a matter of weeks or perhaps months? Even his conversion of an Army barracks will buy him only just over one more month.
	The programme that the Home Secretary has laid before us today might get him to just past Christmas, but what will happen then? Will there be even more inappropriately given, non-custodial sentences or even earlier releases? Does he accept that the prison capacity failure has harmed every stage of the criminal justice system? It will handicap policemen from catching criminals. It has meant that criminals who should be in prison are either not sent to prison or released too early, and even when some criminals go to prison, the process has been rendered so chaotic that reoffending rates are climbing to record levels.
	The Home Secretary must recognise that he cannot blame this on the civil servants, prison officers or judges. This crisisthis catastrophehas arisen because this Government, by the policy that they have chosen to follow, have been derelict in their duty to protect the public.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the events of August and the counter-terrorist measures that were taken. Far from in any way attempting to lay blame today with any officials or with anyone outside those who are responsiblei.e., meI would much prefer to join him in laying some plaudits at the door of those who worked on that counter-terrorist operation. As I said, that is not a reason for complacency, but all of us should take all opportunities to put on the record our thanks for the dedication of those people who work night and day to protect this country from terrorism, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman allowed me the opportunity to do that.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned statistics and inadvertently illustrated just how difficult it can be to judge the trend. He said that the lowest estimate for this year was that 87,000 prison places were needed, but in fact, that is some 7,000 places above the capacity and the requirement at which we are operating. So it is not an exact science, but I have, I think, been quite straight with the House in three areas. First, I accept responsibility, because I am the Secretary of State for home affairs. Secondly, I have not hidden from the House that there is pressure on prison places, which is why I have not only discussed this issue in detail here, but within six weeks of coming in, discussed it with our colleagues at the Treasury and got agreement for another 8,000 prison places. Thirdly, and as I have said today, I have been considering further measures to deal with this issue. It is not true to paint this as a crisis; we did not discover it over the weekend. I have known since we went in about the pressure on places, and I have tried to manage the short, medium and longer term, and to outline these issues before the House with as much honesty as I can.
	Let me then ask for a little honesty on a couple of subjects that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He was very selective in his discussion of reoffending rates. He chose to discuss the intensive supervision and surveillance programme because he knows that the hardest category of people to prevent from reoffending is young people, and that the hardest category among young people to prevent from reoffending are the worst offenders among young people. That is precisely why he chose to discuss that category.
	Let us deal with some other reoffending categories, such as home detention curfew. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared continually to run down anything that happens outside custodial sentences, but the reoffending rate for home detention curfew while tagged, since it began in January 1999, is only 4 per cent., which is an unparalleled low level of reoffending. More than 130,000 people have been released on home detention curfew, and given the low reoffending rate of 5 per cent., I should have expected that extraordinary statistic to fall from the right hon. Gentleman's lips while he was at the Dispatch Box.
	The House will also be interested to know that for adultsnot youngstersthe overall community sentence reoffending rate is too high, at 53 per cent. over two years, but that is 14 per cent. lower than the figure for those who serve prison custodial sentences. So probation is not obviously and self-apparently worse in all circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman would do better to give a balanced view. Moreover, the overall reoffending rate is not 90-odd per cent. for juveniles; it is some 41 per cent. over one year. So it is wrong to take one specific area and to suggest that everything is the same.
	Let me deal finally with prison building. It is absolutely true that we are under pressure, which is the reason why I am bringing in these measures. I hope that the situation has been managed over the past five or six months in a way that copes with the present pressures on prisons, as well as with the foreign national prisoner crisis. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benchesand they are all gentlemen [Hon. Members: No!] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is very obviously a lady, was hidden by the desk; I must have it moved. My profuse apologies, Mr. Speaker. Re-roling prisons is one thing; re-roling ladies on the Front Bench is quite another, more offensive, thing.
	I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support me in my attempt to ensure that no foreign national prisoners are released from prison before they have been considered for deportation. If that is the case, while we work to the early lead time that is necessary in order to ensure that we can give six months' notice so that people will be considered before release, there will be pressure on prison places. I would have hoped that the Opposition would accept that. But the truth of the matter is that while the right hon. Gentleman has been making a dreadful, dreadful fuss because we are a couple of hundred short of maximum capacity [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) shouts, A crisis. Let me give the figures for April 1997, which we inherited. In April 1997, after 18 years of Conservative Government, the total capacity of our prison system was 60,353. The actual prison population was 60,131. They were 223 short of absolute total capacity after 18 years. We will not take lectures from them on this.

Frank Field: As a staggering total of one in seven of our prison population are foreign nationals, will the Home Secretary tell us a little more of his conversations with other Governments about our wish to deport those people who are clogging up our prisons? Would it not be cheaper wherever possible to pay the country of origin to look after these prisoners so that they serve their sentence there, not in this country; and is not a real test of whether people should be in this country whether they have committed crimes?

John Reid: To start with the second part of my right hon. Friend's question, my view on that is known. Foreign nationals who come to this country, take its privileges and demand the rights and hospitality that it bestows upon them, should match that by showing responsibility, and failure to do so is clearly signified in the breach if they commit a serious crime. That is why anyone who is in that position should be automatically presumed to face deportation.
	With regard to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, yes, I agree. At the moment there is a series of obstacles to asking foreign prisoners to go back to their country of origin. We are examining all of those obstacles in detail to see how, either by persuasion or by the obligation of law, we can overcome them. As part of that I have been discussing with my European colleagues, as late as Thursday of last week, this very issue. That would be an additional weapon in our armoury to ensure that we keep in prison in this country those who ought to be there for as long as they ought to be there, but remove from prison those who ought not to be there, either because they need treatment or because they should be back in their country of origin.

Nicholas Clegg: I too thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement and for dealing with the unprecedented events of this summer on behalf of us all, and I thank him for keeping me and, I know, other Opposition Members informed of events as they unfolded.
	All Governments get caught on the hop by unexpected events. It is in the nature of things that disasters creep up on Ministers with little warning. It is also in the nature of things that that happens to Opposition parties too. Any reasonable observer will forgive a little Government panic when unpredictable events take over, but what possible excuse is there for a Government to fail to heed not one, not several, but continuous and repeated warnings of crisis in our prisons stretching back several years? Listening to the complacency of Ministers, the public would be forgiven for thinking that it is just a matter of a little temporary discomfort for prisoners themselves. The truth, of course, is altogether more serious. Overcrowded prisons prevent prisoners from being rehabilitated and so have a direct effect on increased levels of crime in our villages, towns and cities, inflicted by ex-prisoners who now reoffend at an historically unprecedented rated. No one should be under any illusions: public safety is yet again at stake because of Government incompetence. The Home Secretary has come to the House today in an attempt to camouflage a series of stop-gap, emergency measures as a carefully considered package, yet his proposals have raised more questions than long-term answers.
	First, the Home Secretary's statement does not explain why it is estimated that more than 500 foreign prisoners who should have been deported at the end of their sentences are still languishing in prison. The Home Secretary has said that he has set a target of spring next year to sort out the matter, but why take so long? Just a few days ago, a prison governor told me about a foreign prisoner who is desperate to be deported back to Asia and who has no idea why she is still in prison in this country a full nine months after her sentence finished. What possible explanation can the Home Secretary give for such woeful bureaucratic foot dragging?
	Secondly, when will the Home Secretary not only, as he has done today, pay lip service to, but confront in practice, the fact that far too many individuals in prison have acute mental health problemsas many as one in 10 are estimated to be functionally psychotic? Rather than spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in a frantic effort to build prison cells as quickly as they are filled, does it not make more sense to invest that money in building more secure mental health treatment capacity?
	Finally, is it not time for the Home Secretary to pluck up the courage to make the public case, beyond the few fleeting mentions here today, for non-custodial sentences as an effective alternative to prison for those who have committed lesser offences? I welcome his approach, but will he commit himself to do it again, to do it more and to do it in public? There is nothing tough in failing to take the political lead in advocating new ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders outside prison. Contrary to the assertion by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), there is plenty of good practice to build on. In Chard, the community justice panel pilot project has achieved reoffending rates as low as 5 per cent. In Scotland, reoffending rates for those on community service orders now stands at 42 per cent., which is well below the current 70 per cent. reoffending rate for young male prisoners in England.

Tony McNulty: The Home Secretary has said it all.

Nicholas Clegg: Perhaps the Home Secretary will say it again and lead the public debate rather than merely making debating points in the Chamber. The sticking-plaster solutions that he has unveiled today are too little, too late, and he needs the courage and foresight to think anew.

John Reid: I will say it again: the reoffending rate for home detention curfew is 4 per cent.; the overall reoffending rate for adult community sentences is 53 per cent., compared with 67 per cent. for prison; and the overall reoffending rate for juvenile community sentences is 41 per cent. As requested, I have said it againI do not know why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) thinks that he has made a case whereas I have merely mentioned something. I have made those remarks as part of what I hope is a balanced contribution.
	Those who should stay in prison longer for the protection of the public ought to be retained in sufficient prison places, while others ought not to be in prison. The Liberals constantly demand more prison places and fewer people to fill them. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not make a commitment on how many extra prison places the Liberals would build. I have already said 8,000 extra prison places, and I will continue to review the matter, but does he have a figure in mind? He would provide an unspecified number of extra prison places for fewer prisoners, although that is unspecified, too. That is a typical concoction from the Liberals, and vacuous is too substantial a word to describe it.  [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members should not laugh, because they have not told us how many prison places they would provide.
	In the summer, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that the Conservative party would build more prison places, but he was immediately put back in his box by the shadow Chancellor, who told him that there would be no commitment.  [ Interruption. ] If there is a specific number, I am waiting to hear it.
	I have tried to be honest with the House in saying that there is pressure on prison places and explaining how we are going to manage that in the short term and the longer term. This is not a case of being caught on the hop by an unexpected event. The only unexpected event that caught me on the hop was being appointed to the Home Office, and I have already accepted that. Since I have been there, I have tried to ensure that we have a planned, progressive attempt to make sure that the sentence fits the crime and that the prison places available fit sentence lengths and numbers. That is what we will continue to do.
	On foreign national prisoners, we are doing a considerable amount. Five hundred people are allocated to this to try not only to reduce the backlog but to deal with the cases that are coming up. Since we had our first discussion in this House, about 3,800 cases have been dealt with and 1,000 of those people have already been deported. Events continue to take place as we deal with the problems that arose in May or June of last year. I thank my officials for dealing with both those areas with dedication and commitment.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very important issue and an awful lot of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but we also have a lot of business to get through this afternoon and I must protect that. If hon. Members can possibly ask brief questions and the Home Secretary can perhaps make brief replies, fewer people will be disappointed.

John Battle: My right hon. Friend will know that Armley prison in my constituency has struggled to cope with overcrowding for more than two decades, with more than 1,000 people locked up every night, 50 going in and 50 released. Even in those circumstances, the governor and staff have done a remarkable job in providing education and training and tackling drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now well-established research saying that if a prisoner who has a familythat applies to 50 per cent.gets more than six visits from his young children he is very unlikely to reoffend? When we tackle reoffending, will my right hon. Friend join together the programmes for adult literacy

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear my earlier remarks.

John Reid: Let me pay tribute not only to the staff at Armley prison but to prison officers throughout the country. It is true that rehabilitation is an important part of the purpose of prison. Articulacylearning to read and write in some casesis also important. In Armley, the learning process has been combined with visits by encouraging the prisoners to read and to help their children to learn. That requires the support of a dedicated prison service, and I should like to pay tribute to staff who are working very hard under very pressurised conditions.

Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Home Secretary to distinguish between operational capacity and certified normal accommodation, the second of which measures overcrowding? Since he is so fond of comparisons with 1997, will he give us the percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one, compared with 1997? Will he tell us whether there are any instances of three sharing a cell designed for two, which we had wholly eliminated; whether, as a result of bringing back into use discarded accommodation, there is any slopping out, which we had completely eliminated; and how many national vocational qualifications are being awarded, compared with 1997?

John Reid: I cannot give the right hon. Lady the percentages

Ann Widdecombe: Why not?

John Reid: Because I did not anticipate that I would have the pleasure of a question from her.  [ Interruption. ] I can approximate towards the answer that she is asking for, and I will certainly write to her afterwards. In 1997, the total crowded capacity in prisons was 60,353that is, with people double-bunking as welland the actual prison population was 60,131. In other words, even with massive doubling-up the prison population was only 223 short of running out of places. I will find the percentage figures, which I do not have available, and write to the right hon. Lady.

Gordon Prentice: I am looking at the Home Office publication entitled, World Prison Population List. Do we have anything to learn from other countries in the European Union that lock up far fewer prisoners than we do?

John Reid: I would caution the hon. Gentleman as he peruses world encyclopaedias to remember that different countries do not all measure by the same standards. For example, the measurement for people locked up per head of population is different from that for those locked up in proportion to offences detected. In this country, in proportion to offences detected, we are lower than many European countries. Secondly, there is a huge variation between European countries in how one measures offences detected and offences reported. Although international comparisons are useful, they are genuinely useful only if they are made on the basis of the same bottom line. That is rarely the case.

Andrew MacKay: When the Home Secretary described the Department as not fit for purpose, I presume that he was referring to his predecessors' failure in nine years to create a proper prison-building programme. Does he know that he will be judged on how many genuine extra prison places he creates in the next few months?

John Reid: As it happens, I was not referring to my predecessors or prison places. One of the reasons for that is that my predecessors built almost as many prison places as the previous, Conservative Government in half the time. We have built 16,300 prison places in nine years. The previous Government built approximately 17,000 in 18 years. Far from believing that my predecessors did not build sufficient prison places compared with those who went before them, I know that they built many more pro rata.

Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to meet me and Dover district council to discuss his proposals to use Connaught barracks in Dover as a prison site. He knows that people in Dover are outraged and angry about the proposals, not only because of the site's proximity to local schools and a local housing estate but because it is special and key to strategic redevelopment. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when we meet, we have the opportunity to put those powerful arguments to him, as we did to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and that he will take those points into consideration before making a final decision?

John Reid: Of course I can assure my hon. Friend of that. He knows that I have said that I am more than willing to meet him. In the course of that consultation and negotiation I shall bear in mind factors such as local regeneration and opinion. He has already met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the matter and I look forward to meeting him and his colleagues and listening to what they have to say.

Michael Jack: What reassurances can the Home Secretary give the people in my constituency who live near Kirkham open prison that the category of risk for prisoners deemed suitable, under his proposals, for transfer to an open prison will not change until his additional prison places become available?

John Reid: Actually, those prisoners who, for efficient management of the estate purposes, will go to an open prison system in addition to those who would normally go, constitute a lower risk. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the normal course of events under Governments of all persuasions, sometimes people who had served long sentences would go to an open prison before being released into the community at some stage. Those people would occasionally have committed violent offences, sexual offences or other offences leading to long sentences. That is not the case for those whom I have agreed can be moved for the additional management of the estate. I have insisted that that applies to people who are serving low sentences for non-violent and non-sexual crimes and that they undergo careful scrutiny before they go. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that anyone who goes under the latest decision making will be of a lower risk than those who have gone previously.

Neil Gerrard: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposal to look at what can be done to ensure that people who do not need to be in prison do not go there. Will he also examine what is happening now to people on parole who are recalled to prison? It appears that some are being recalled for the most trivial breaches of their parole conditions, and that no discretion is being given to probation officers to determine whether the problem is a serious or repeated breach.

John Reid: I do not know any of the specific cases to which my hon. Friend refers. However, if people are allowed out of prison subject to not breaching the terms of their licence and they then proceed to breach them, they should go back in, and that is what is happening.

Bob Russell: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in July 1998, the Home Affairs Committee published a report entitled Alternatives to Prison Sentences, which contained 47 recommendations? Does he agree that, if those all-party recommendations had been fully implemented, we might not be in the situation that we are in today? Will he also clarify precisely which garrison accommodation he is proposing to convert for prison use? His statement is silent on the location of that accommodation.

John Reid: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is Dover, but if he knows of any other barracks, institutions or premises that might be suitable and available, I will of course look at them as well.
	Many of the recommendations in the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have in fact been implemented. We commit people to community service where that is appropriate. However, the public will be more likely to accept a sentencing regimeincluding community serviceif they know that it has not been dictated by a shortage of prison places. In other words, they want to be reassured that those who deserve to be kept in prison for longer periods are being so detained, rather than illegitimately being given a non-custodial sentence for the wrong reasons. I understand that feeling, which is why I want to ensure that dangerous offenders are kept away from the public if their offence merits that. On that basis, we can then argue that community service and other non-custodial sentencesmany of which are referred to in the reportare appropriate, and they will gain public acceptance.

Kerry McCarthy: My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of community sentences to reducing reoffending. Does he also agree that community and voluntary sector groups have a valuable role to play in working with prolific offenders and with young people at risk of offending, to ensure that the future prison population is kept down to a manageable level?

John Reid: Yes, I do. I want to see more involvement of and partnership with the voluntary sector, as well as with the private sector, not only in this context but throughout the public services. That is not a particularly new thing; it is part of the very origins of the Labour party to work alongside those who believe that self-improvement and voluntary partnership are important elements of creating a better society. That certainly applies in the case of the Prison Service in regard to reducing reoffending, and it is central to the National Offender Management Service plans that we will develop over the next year.

Tony Baldry: Rehabilitation, literacy learning and detox programmes all require a degree of stability. Will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that the Prison Service will do all that it can to prevent the unnecessary movement of people around the prison estate, so that they have a chance to complete their literacy programme or their detox programme, or to get their NVQ? That is crucial for the men at prisons such as Bullingdon, if we are to reduce reoffending rates.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know that that is the ideal, and the objective of those who work in the Prison Service, from the prison officers right up to the top management. It is one of the effects of the pressures on the prison population that we cannot always maximise the benefits of these programmes, but it is certainly our objective to do so. We want to do that, and we will do what we can.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The issue of prison capacity was raised with me on many occasions while I was working with the West Midlands police this summer, and I believe that these proposals will help. However, I should like to raise the issues of the availability of drugs and the illicit use of mobile phones in prisons. As well as increasing prison capacity, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into the recruitment of warders and the management of our prisons?

John Reid: Both of those activities are importantnot only drugs, which are an obvious problem, but the use of mobile phonesparticularly where they are related to ongoing involvement in criminal activities outside the prison. My hon. Friend makes a good point; they are two priority areas for investigation.

John Bercow: Given that we get scandalously poor value for money from tens of thousands of people perambulating repeatedly through the revolving doors of our criminal justice system, when will the right hon. Gentleman be really brave and show foresight by making a firm commitment on the Floor of this House to substantial investment in education, training and therapy on the scale that alone might enable us to convert at least a proportion of career criminals into constructive contributors to our society?

John Reid: That is precisely what underlines our approach in the National Offender Management Service. There is no question but that the range of rehabilitative courses and learning that goes on pays immense benefits, not only to the individuals concerned, but in terms of the protection of society when people are released. When I was at one of the London prisons recently, people were developing skills in bricklaying and plastering, related to the building trade and in anticipation of the building boom that will be necessary for the Olympics, and arrangements were being made with building firms outside to place the prisoners when they are released.
	That is a huge advance, and I would guess that the probability of some of those people returning to prison is minimised precisely because of those arrangements, so I have no hesitation in saying that such learning is an essential element of why we have prisons in the first placeultimately, reducing reoffending protects societybut it is obvious that we are not achieving that at anything like the rate that we ought to be.

Redundancies (York)

Hugh Bayley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should receive urgent considerationnamely, the serious job losses in York over the summer at British Sugar, Norwich Union and Nestl Rowntree.
	In July, British Sugar said that it would close the York sugar factory after this winter's beet processing campaign, with the loss of more than 100 permanent jobs. Seasonal workers and the factory's suppliersfarmers and road haulierswill lose their jobs too. Then, in September, Norwich Union announced the loss of 450 jobs in York from its life assurance business, and the following week Nestl Rowntree announced plans for 645 redundancies at its York factory.
	Those job losses are a body blow for the workers and their families, who will lose their livelihoods. Many of them will find it hard to get alternative jobs with similar pay because their industrial skills, which used to be so highly valued, are no longer in demand.
	The job losses are a shock to the York economy, which has been performing well in recent years. Unemployment in my constituency dropped from a high of 6,500 under the Conservatives to 1,300 in 2004, but since then, with the closure of York's other chocolate factory, Terry's, and other retrenchment, it has climbed back to 1,700, and sadly will rise higher as those latest job losses feed through into the unemployment figures.
	Average wages in York have risen sharply since 1997, but over the last two years average male earnings have fallen back. Those job losses have been a wake-up call for York. Following my suggestion, the council has commissioned an independent review of the city's employment strategy, involving business leaders from science, transport, tourism, manufacturing and services.
	York's experience should be a wake-up call to national Government too. The Government need to re-examine their manufacturing and competition policies. The Bank of England is warning that the overvalued pound is costing manufacturing jobs, and it is putting pressure on service industries, too, as Norwich Union's decision to transfer some back-office functions to low-wage economies shows. It is all very well to enjoy cheap summer holidays abroad, on the back of a strong pound, but the memories fade pretty fast when people come home to find that their job has gone. The strong pound is hitting incoming tourism, too, which also matters to York.
	My city needs support from the Government and from Yorkshire Forward to help redundant workers find new jobs and to encourage inward investment to York. We also need the Government to re-examine their regional economic strategy and to work with York's employment review to bolster York's regional role as a science city, for example, and as a centre for financial services and civil service jobs. Given the pressure on food manufacturing jobs in particular, the Government need to make sure that the Competition Commission uses its investigation of the groceries trade to see whether the big supermarkets are putting too much pressure on their suppliers, to the point that the suppliers are cutting jobs.
	Those are the urgent matters that I want the House to discuss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either this afternoon, if you see fit to adjourn the House, or at some other time in the near future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Point of Order

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and all Members of the House realise that the situation in North Korea, with today's news of nuclear weapons tests there, is a matter of growing international concern. Earlier this afternoon, a Foreign Office Minister made a statement and answered questions on this matter in another place. Less than an hour ago, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on this matter to the members of the press. However, no Foreign Office Minister has come to the House to make a statement and to answer questions from hon. Members. Given all that the Speaker, you and other Deputy Speakers have said previously about the importance of Ministers making statements to the House, I seek your guidance as to how we can ensure that, in future, on such matters of grave concern, Ministers recognise their responsibility to put themselves forward to be asked questions by elected representatives in this Chamber, and not simply to give statements to the press.

Gavin Strang: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House is seized of the importance of the report of a successful nuclear weapons test by North Korea. Was an approach made to the Speaker this morning by a Minister asking for the opportunity to make a statement? Obviously, there is an urgent need for an early debate or statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There were moves this morning for the matter to be discussed. Decisions were taken then, and they are not ones that the House or anyone can go back over now. I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), which she has put firmly on the record. Mr. Speaker's views about such matters are well known. We have a crowded programme today, with two statements as well as a lot of other business, but no doubt those on the Government Front Bench will also have heard what the right hon. Lady said and will take what action they think is appropriate.

Orders of the Day

Road Safety Bill [ Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, this very important, wide-ranging Bill deserves the highest level of scrutiny. We were promised a day for Report and Third Reading, but now, because of the two statements, important though they were, we are faced with considerably less time in which to debate a whole raft of new clauses and amendments. As the House has today returned reinvigorated and refreshed from the summer recess, I wondered whether you have heard from those on the Treasury Bench that they intend to make provision to allow the debate to continue until midnight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the timing of today's debate, and about the time that we have already taken up, on which he may have heard my earlier comments. We cannot now go over the time allowed, for that has already been decided by the House. I can only suggest to the House that any time devoted to debating this point further would be better spent on the business before us.

New Clause 6
	  
	Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences

'(1) Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in England and Wales outside London) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 61 (suspension and revocation of drivers' licences), after subsection (2) insert
	(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) of this section, a suspension or revocation of the licence of a driver under this section takes effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section.
	(2B) If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver.
	(3) In subsection (3) of that section, after under insert subsection (1) of.
	(4) In section 77 (appeals), after subsection (2) insert
	(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply in relation to a decision under subsection (1) of section 61 of this Act which has immediate effect in accordance with subsection (2B) of that section..'. [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 7 Abolition of contract exemption.
	Government motion that clause 53 be transferred to the end of line 23 on page 56. Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.

Stephen Ladyman: I hope that it is not impertinent of me to say thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the ruling that you have just given.
	New clauses 6 and 7 deal with taxis and private hire vehicles, sometimes known as minicabs. Both clauses have the same objective: to make travel safer for people who use those modes of transport. Against the background of the Bichard report and the legislation that we have brought forward in that regard, we have considered carefully whether we should use the opportunity presented by the Road Safety Bill to deal with any urgent safety concerns relating to taxi and PHV legislation. The result is these new clauses to deal with two worrying aspects of the legislation that we identified.
	New clause 6 addresses our concern about a taxi or PHV driver's right to continue working while appealing against a decision to suspend or revoke his licence, even if he is considered to represent an immediate threat to public safety. The new clause gives local licensing authorities in England and Wales, outside London, a new power which will enable them to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence with immediate effect on safety grounds. That power has been available to the licensing authority in LondonTransport for Londonfor a number of years.
	Drivers' automatic right to continue working pending appeal has been a source of justified concern to many taxi and PHV licensing authorities. They want to use their licensing powers to ensure that passengers are safe using local taxi and PHV services. They play a tremendously important role in protecting residents and visitors who use taxis and PHVs in their areas. The new clause will enable them to do so even more thoroughly in some circumstancesfor example, when a driver has committed a serious offence or is suffering from a medical condition that makes it unsafe for him to continue working.

Derek Conway: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his speech. He will know that there is concern among private operators who provide special-needs transport because they are subject to enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks, and many are locked into local authority contracts until 2010. Operators in my constituency want to know when the Minister intends the enhanced protection regulations to come into force, because owing to the local authority contracts they are already subject to the checks. I gather that there may be some room for manoeuvre over when the imposition will actually occur. If the Minister could provide any guidance, those operators would be very grateful.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand their concern. If the new clause is accepted today, there will be a consultation with all stakeholders following Royal Assent. One of the issues that we will consider during the consultation is the time at which the changes will come into force. However, I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that a key principle on which we shall have to decide when making a decision is the safety of the public. I am sure that he and his constituents would agree with that. There may therefore be a conflict between the interest of protecting the public and the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have existing contracts. I hope that we shall find a way of resolving that conflict, but if there is no way of doing so, we shall have to come down on the side of public safety. I hope that despite that caveat, and given the promise of a thorough consultation involving all stakeholders, the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that we will listen to his constituents' concerns.
	New clause 7 deals with our concern about what is commonly known as the contract exemption: the provision that exempts drivers, vehicles and operators outside London from licensing if the vehicles are hired only under contracts lasting seven days or more. On Second Reading and on other occasions, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) expressed concern about what will now be clause 53, which tightens the definition of a private hire vehicle in London and will bring vehicles dedicated to contract work within the London PHV licensing regime.
	One of the hon. Gentleman's points was that the clause would be inconsistent with retention of the contract exemption outside London. In Committee I promised to consider the matter, while warning the hon. Gentleman that those who open a can of worms must expect what they are likely to find in it. Having considered, I reached a conclusionalso reached by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron)that was not the one for which the hon. Gentleman had hoped. Our conclusion was that public safety, and indeed consistency, required not that we did not make the provision in London, but that we extended it to the rest of the country and ensured that contract private hire work was licensed both in London and elsewhere. That is why we tabled the new clause.

Rosemary McKenna: Having sat in Committee, I appreciate how much work had been done on amendments in the meantime. Most organisations, certainly the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, are delighted at the work that has already been done, but one matter has not been taken into account in any of the amendments or new clauses. Will you comment on the fact that [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend comment on

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to correct the hon. Lady, but she has now corrected herself.

Rosemary McKenna: The Minister has not taken into account provisions relating to causing serious injury. Penalties for causing death by dangerous driving are often discussed, but another major concern for many people is serious injury caused by dangerous driving.

Stephen Ladyman: I will take up those issues as we discuss the various amendments before us. There is a difference between causing death and causing serious injury, and I believe that the provisions dealing with them should be different. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, which she has put to me before and, if she will accept it, I will deal with them in greater detail at a more appropriate place in our debate.
	To continue my discussion of new clause 7, there are no compelling reasons why private hire services provided under long-term contracts should be outside the arrangements for ensuring public safety, which are considered to be essential for other private hire work. The need to ensure public safety remains the same, regardless of whether the hiring is a one-off or part of a long-term contract. For a passenger possibly at risk, the method of hiring is not relevant; what is important is that there is no doubt that all the necessary checks and procedures have been comprehensively and effectively carried out. There are good grounds for removing the contract exemption in terms of ensuring a level playing field in the industry. Unlicensed contractors have a commercial advantage over their licensed counterparts, which cannot be justified.
	I believe that both new clauses are strongly supported by those who have responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene so early. Given that we are so keen on the safety of drivers and that we are introducing so many sensible amendments, will he explain why there is no discussion of pedicabs, which are highly dangerous, yet seem to be of no concern to anyone? It is quite possible, if one is bored with someone, to put them in a pedicab.

Stephen Ladyman: It would be wrong for me to debate Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. I know that some hon. Members tabled amendments on pedicabs, but they have not been selected. However, I know that Transport for London intends to bring pedicabs within a regulatory regime. In my view, the proposed arrangements will be adequate to cover the issue. My hon. Friend may have a different view, however, as she does on so many issues that we discuss.
	As I was saying, both new clauses are strongly supported by those with responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing and have been welcomed by many in the industry. They are necessary to safeguard the public and I commend them to the House.

Stephen Hammond: We agree with the Government on one of the new clauses, but probably not on the other. New clause 6 introduces new provisions into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That Act currently allows a local authority or other licensing power or body to exercise the power to revoke, suspend or refuse a licence where the subject is convicted of specific offences or for any other reasonable cause that the authority has grounds for believing. If I understand the intention behind the new clause, it will allow a local authority or licensing body to revoke or suspend the licence of taxi driver or minicab with immediate effect where it is a matter of public safety, or on other grounds after 21 days where notice has been served on the driver.
	Our question, on which I seek clarification, is this; the Government currently have powers under the 1976 Act to revoke a licence for any other reasonable cause and for a specific conviction. The proposed public safety grounds represent a power that is additional to the Act and it is unclear how this will work in practice.
	I assume that a conviction for a serious driving offence would be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that a conviction for an assault such as actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm against another road user, a pedestrian or a passenger would again be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that driving a vehicle without a valid MOT or in an unroadworthy condition as designated by the police or by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency would be covered under the reasonable cause provision. I assume that a deterioration in a given medical condition would be covered by that provision as well.
	If the Minister is willing to tell me that my assumptions are incorrect, I will see the need for the new clause. If so, perhaps he will give me three specific examples where public safety needs arise beyond those already dealt with by the 1976 Act. The Minister made much in Committee about powers that were not being enforced at present, and said that we should not introduce more new powers that were unlikely to be enforced. We need clarity from the Government as to exactly how the new clause will work.
	There was substantial discussion in Committee of new clause 7 and the Minister has done what he warned us he would do; he has closed what he described as the can of worms. However, as new clause 7 puts into effect for the rest of the country what clause 53 does for London, is it necessary? The 1988 Act is working perfectly well within London. There are vast numbers of contractors supplying private hire services to councils on a contract basis. They are Criminal Records Bureau-checked and their vehicles are checked and comply with safety provisions, but they are not available to the public. There seems to be no reason for the Government to intervene in an Act that is working well. This seems to be another piece of unnecessary legislation.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. Were we here today debating an abuse of a vulnerable person by someone driving a private hire vehicle who had not been appropriately checked and who had been allowed to drive because of the contract exemption, I suspect that his argument would be that I should resign my position because I had not taken the opportunity of the Road Safety Bill to close that loophole.

Stephen Hammond: But as we said in Committee, and as I said in my speech, these people are CRB-checked, so the case the Minister makes does not arise.

Stephen Ladyman: Clearly there are opportunities within the process that someone must go through to have the right to drive a vehicle under the contract exemption that might allow someone who had not been appropriately checked to drive. We had this debate on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Orpington said that the need for checks would put his constituent, who had a PHV company that was taking advantage of the contract exemption, at a competitive disadvantage, because he would now have to pay for his drivers to be checked. Clearly there is a loophole. I agreed in Committee to look at the matter and to decide whether, in the interests of consistency, we should close the loophole not only in London, as Transport for London had requested, but in the rest of the country. We took the view that we should close it in the rest of the country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to cite three examples, but I cannot do so. I hope that nobody will ever be in a position to do so, because we have closed the loophole. Serious questions would certainly be asked if we did not do so. Will the change be a major regulatory burden on the industry? No, it will not. I hope that anybody who has used the contract exemption in the past has checked their drivers and gone through the whole process. The fact that they will now have to do so by law is neither here nor there. It should be no additional burden if they have followed best practice in the past. If they have not been doing so, there will be an additional burden, but I argue that it is an appropriate burden for them to carry.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is carefullybut not helpfullyintertwining the two clauses. Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 a taxi or minicab driver can be suspended for being convicted of a specific offence or for any other reasonable cause decided by the licensing authority. I would like the Minister to tell us what public safety requires beyond any other reasonable cause. As yet, he has not told us.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of the new clause and I accept full responsibility for not having explained it. There will be no new powers to suspend or revoke a licence. One would still have to satisfy the grounds for a suspension or revocation of a driver's licence as under the present legislation. The difference is that at the moment if the individual whose licence is suspended appeals against that suspension, they can continue to drive people around while they await the hearing of the appeal. If someone is accused of a serious offenceas serious as rape or some other sexual offenceit would be horrendous if they were allowed to continue to drive a private hire vehicle while waiting for the appeal against suspension to be heard. Under the new clause, when the licensing authority takes the view that the offence is serious, it will be able to suspend the licence.
	The argument that was put to us by some taxi drivers was that it might leave them open to false allegations and they might lose their livelihood over a trivial allegation while awaiting the hearing of appeal against suspension. However, in the experience of the use of the power in London, where it has been in place for some time, it has not been abused. Drivers have had their licences suspended pending appeal only in cases in which a serious allegation has been made against them. Given the seriousness of the offences that might be involved, I think that the new clause is a proportionate response to the situation. No driver should lose their livelihood lightly even for a short time, but when someone is accused of an offence of sufficient seriousness to justify the revocation or suspension of their licence, it is appropriate that they should not continue to drive pending an appeal.
	I hope that I have at least partially reassured the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and other hon. Members, and that the new clauses will be added to the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	  
	Abolition of contract exemption

'In section 75(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in England and Wales outside London: savings), omit paragraph (b) (vehicles used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward under contract for hire for not less than 7 day period).'. [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28
	  
	Delegation of power to make level crossing orders

'(1) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 (c. 14) (agreements by Secretary of State and Office of Rail Regulation for that Office to carry out on his behalf functions other than powers to make instruments of legislative character), after sub-paragraph (3) insert
	(4) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) does not prevent the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail Regulation from entering into an agreement for that Office to carry out on his behalf the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983.
	(2) Subsection (2) of section 13 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (agreements by Health and Safety Commission with Minister to perform functions on his behalf not to be taken to authorise performance of powers to make instruments of legislative character) is not to be taken to have prevented the performance by the Health and Safety Executive (on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission), in reliance on an agreement under subsection (1)(b) of that section, of the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16).'. [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 37 Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings
	'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (drivers to comply with traffic signs) consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.
	New clause 38 Increase of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a railway or other bridge over a road
	'(1) If a person causes damage to a railway or other bridge over a road by driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with not less than 6 penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.
	Government motion that clause 50 be transferred to the end of line 23 on page 56.
	Government amendments Nos. 17 to 19.

Stephen Ladyman: I urge the House to agree the amendments, which seek to confirm that the making of level crossing orders can be delegated to the rail safety regulator. First, I apologise to the House for the short notice given of the amendments, and for our failure to table them earlier, but I hope that it will accept the explanation.
	Level crossing orders set out the protective measures that are to be provided at each level crossing. Protective measures are the types of signs, barriers and lights needed to ensure that the crossing has the most appropriate measures for safe operation by both rail and road users. The general process has been that, after consultation with the local authority, the level crossing operatorNetwork Rail in most casesapplies to the Secretary of State for an order setting out the measures that it wants at the site. The proposals are considered by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and the order is made by HMRI on behalf of the Secretary of State. That procedure continued after 1990, when HMRI transferred from the Department of Transport to the Health and Safety Executive.
	With the transfer of HMRI from the Health and Safety Executive to the Office of Rail Regulation earlier this year, we intended that HMRI would continue to make level crossing orders on behalf of the Secretary of State, but I am afraid that doubt has been cast on whether the wording of the Railways Act 2005 allows that. In turn, that has cast doubt on whether the delegation to the HSE in 1990 was sufficiently robust. We therefore seek to amend the 2005 Act to put beyond doubt the fact that the making of level crossing orders can be delegated, and to make it clear that orders made on behalf of the Secretary of State by HMRI inspectors of the HSE are valid. If approved, the amendment will confirm that the legal position is what everyone always thought it was, as it has worked well for level crossing safety.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Before the Minister finishes his mea culpaand may I say that it gives one or two of us joy to see the Department caught out on something so important?I should like to ask why the amendments introduced in another place on the related subject of bridge strikes, of which there are nearly 2,000 a year, seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth with the speed of light. Why is it so important to deal with level crossing safety, but not bridge strikes, which affect all sorts of people?

Stephen Ladyman: For the simple reason that, in my view, the legislation on bridge strikes deals perfectly adequately with anybody who causes a bridge strike. The amendments that were sought at an earlier stage would have provided additional powers that are unnecessary. I take issue with my hon. Friend's belief that the Department has been caught out. I remind her that it is not the Department under this Government that was caught out, but the Department under the auspices of the previous Government, back in 1990. If I may say so, we are fixing what is possibly the last bungle of rail privatisationor at least the last one that we know about; it is always possible that others may appear in the near future.
	We have introduced the amendments to make the legal position what everyone thought it was. I do not think that the technical loophole has been exploited to date, but we want to take the opportunity to make the law on level crossings clear and robust, and new clause 28 will help us to achieve that. I do not think that it is controversial, so I hope that the House will support it. I will comment on the other new clauses later if anyone wishes to raise them in debate.

Stephen Hammond: rose

Eric Martlew: Apologise.

Stephen Hammond: I shall certainly apologise for the failure of Members on the Treasury Bench to vote with us on these matters in Committee.
	During the passage of the Bill in the other place six new clauses were added to deal with safety at level crossings. The Government stated at the time that they would remove them. In Committee, my hon. Friends and I aired and discussed those clauses and amendments, which were designed to protect the public, punish drivers who fail to obey signals at level crossings and who fail to obey bridge guidelines. To their shame, the Government voted against each of those sensible amendments to aid road safety.
	The Minister stated that the Government would make new proposals to improve safety at level crossings by clarifying the powers of the relevant authorities, yet today we have before us a new clause whose intent is merely to amend paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005, so that the Office of Rail Regulation can make regulations. Provisions under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 allow the Health and Safety Commission to do the same thing.
	That is all that the Government propose to do, and it is a huge disappointment to those of us who have spoken to Network Rail and to the operators. The Government cannot be aware of what Network Rail said about the seriousness of the offences being committedof drivers pulling out and overtaking queues, zig-zagging around barriers or pulling out on to the line and reversing to avoid trains and vehicles. They cannot be aware of the seriousness of the impact of those offences and of the consequences for human life when a train collides with a car due to a failure to stop at red warning lights. The Minister seems to be sayingas he seemed to say in Committeethat red lights at a level crossing are exactly the same as those elsewhere. They are not. A driver who skips a red light at an ordinary road junction will not hit or derail a train. It should not need pointing out that a collision on a level crossing between a car and an express train travelling at speeds of up to 125 mph is likely to cause the death not only of the driver but of scores of railway passengers.
	The new clause is a monumental lost opportunity. The Government had the option to write into the Bill sensible measures that would have had an enormous impact on road safety. Current fines and penalties for offenders at level crossingsoften serial offendersare insufficient. Those offences are at least as serious as drink-driving, and sentencing ought to reflect that. Magistrates could have had powers to impose substantial custodial sentences and endorsement penalties on persistent offenders. The matter should be on the face of the Bill. New clause 28 will not affect the problem and the Minister stands charged with failure to fulfil what he undertook to do in Committee.
	We are also dealing with new clauses 37 and 38. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am grateful to Lib Dem Members for proposing provisions that are so close in form and substance to those we tabled in another place and which we aired in Committee. If the Lib Dems had been writing a novel they might have been guilty of plagiarism, so some of them might want to join us and support the real thing rather than follow a pale imitation.
	We applaud new clauses 37 and 38 and the flexibility that would allow magistrates to pass custodial sentences. Our original amendments proposed slightly higher custodial sentences and endorsement penalties. None the less, we noted the Liberal Democrats' support in Committee and if they are minded to test their new clauses tonight I shall ask my hon. Friends in the official Opposition to support them.

Alistair Carmichael: In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), it is indeed my intention to test the opinion of the House on new clause 37.
	Before I address new clauses 37 and 38, I want to say a word or two about the Government's proposals. Clearly, they are not the new clauses that we were promised earlier in the deliberations on the Bill, and they do not strike at the fundamental problemthe lack of force behind the current offences. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon says, it is quite improper to suggest that running a red light at a level crossing is the same in its consequences or seriousness as doing so on a road.
	I, too, have seen the videos produced by Network Rail. Some of what is recorded is, frankly, chilling. The way in which some drivers are prepared to take risks at level crossings is exceptionally disturbing. This debate is partly about the message that we are sending, and I fear that the message being sent by the Government does not attach sufficient seriousness to the offences as they occur daily at level crossings.

Robert Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an amendment is made more important by the fact that some parts of our rail network are approaching saturation point? In many cases the time between the barriers opening and closing again can be as little as one minute, which encourages some local people, who get used to the situation, to flout the law and cause accidents, which are, sadly, increasing.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is doubtless capable of remedy by operational procedures put in place by Network Rail rather than necessitating an impact on the Bill, but it is an indication of the seriousness with which the issue is regarded in constituencies throughout the country. I can say that as a somewhat impartial observer because I have not a single level crossing in my constituency. Indeed, I have not a yard of railway track in my constituency. I hope that the House will accept that in this matter I appear as an objective and independent-minded arbiter of the truth.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose

Alistair Carmichael: I give way to another objective and independent-minded arbiter.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been listening very carefully, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a very simple question. Is he prepared to support the commitment of very large sums from the railway budget to an urgent investigation of alternatives to level crossings in the many thousands of places where they are found? Has he done any research on what that would cost, where it would be necessary and what alternatives could be looked at?

Alistair Carmichael: Every time I am asked about commitments of finances I hear groans from my colleagues in our Treasury team. No, we have not done such research, and, with respect to the hon. Lady, that is not what this new clause is about. It is about the level of penalties that are imposed under the present regime. I am certainly prepared to work with her and others in the industry and in pressure groups to see what alternatives might be available to us, how they might be implemented, what they would cost and what benefits would arise. To answer the hon. Lady's question directly, no I have not done the sums, but if she has done them, doubtless she will favour us with them later in the debate.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is talking about penalties. I think I understood him to say that if new clause 37 did not find favour with the Government he would seek to test the opinion of the House on it. May I refer him to the wording of line 5? I do not think that it would be very good legislation to refer to
	a fine not exceeding six months.
	Would he care to clarify?

Alistair Carmichael: That is line 6 in the copy that I have, but I fully accept that there is a typographical error. If the Government are prepared, or indeed if the House is prepared, to accept the new clause today, it would still be capable of straightforward remedy in the other place because its agreement on the new clause would have to be sought. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman raises a fatal objection, but I acknowledge that typographical error.
	The Minister has explained what lies behind the introduction of the Government new clauses. I have one or two concerns that I wish to explore with him in relation to the retrospective nature of the new clauses.
	The Minister wrote to me on 5 October, and I understand that copies of that letter and others have been placed in the Library. He stated that the Government were
	tabling the attached amendment to put beyond doubt that we can delegate the making of level crossing orders to ORR and to validate those orders made by HSE since 1990.
	What legal advice has he obtained on the matter? He will be aware that retrospective legislation is generally not encouraged and is generally considered to run contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is not without precedent, of course, but must be undertaken with due regard to proportionality. Is the Minister satisfied that the measure is proportionate in respect of its retrospective application? Will he place on the record when Ministers were first made aware that there was an issue, and that amendments had to be brought before us?
	I place on record our acknowledgement of the fact that the Conservatives in the other place worked closely with my noble Friends on new clause 37, and I hope they will continue to do so.
	On new clause 38the bridge-bashing clause, so to speakit would appear from the frequency of bridge- bashing incidents that the current law is not acting as a deterrent to the drivers responsible for them, notwithstanding the awareness campaign launched recently by Network Rail. It is defined as
	an incident in which a vehicle, its load or equipment collides with a bridge.
	In 2003-04 bridge bashing was the 15th worst cause of cumulative delay, which was no less than 335,442 minutes. I am grateful to Network Railor perhaps trainspotters.comfor these statistics. Two hundred and twelve bridges have been struck more than three times a year, and Cook street in Glasgow was struck 17 times last year. Whitehouse road, Swindon, and Southend lane, Lower Sydenham have each been struck 127 times since 1996. It is clear that this is a matter of significant difficulty and that it is causing substantial delay and expense to road users and to Network Rail. Current legislation is not adequate and accordingly we shall insist on our proposals in new clause 38.

Rob Marris: The Minister kindly apologised to the House for tabling new clause 28 at rather short notice because a problem has recently been revealed. I hope he will reconsider the wording of the new clause, particularly subsection (2). Although the Bill originated in the other place, it will go back there because of amendments made in this place. The wording of subsection (2) is somewhat opaque. I do not see why there is effectively a double negative in line 4
	not to be taken to have prevented
	rather than to be taken to have allowed or some such wording. Such problems arise when measures are drafted at the last minute and come before the House with little notice. I understand the Minister's position, but if the clause is agreed tonight, I urge him and his colleagues in the other place to re-examine the wording, which is not felicitous. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, retrospective legislation is rare. If we are to have itand I understand the reasons for itwe should be clear that the wording is right, and that it is not rushed and likely to create further problems.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On bridge bashing, may I ask the Minister whether any work has been done on systems to warn drivers of heavy goods vehicles and large goods vehicles of the possibility of such collisions? Such a system would save many thousands of pounds. It is not a complex situation, and if we could get the support of the House it would save changing the law. It would be a positive step that would be greatly welcomed by those who have to pay out large sums for bridges that are damaged every day.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand the concerns expressed and I take the issue of bridge strikes very seriously. Were we to require the fitting of equipment to vehicles, we would have to go through the European Union and seek the agreement of all members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is responsible for type approval of new vehicles.
	Should it be deemed valuable to install such equipment in vehicles, however, the process for securing approval would not require the legislative change that is being proposed. If there is a case to be made to the European Unionthe cost savings to industry and the public infrastructurewe can pursue it with our colleagues in Europe. I am happy to ask my officials to look into the evidence, to see whether such a change to type approval would be necessary and, if so, how we pursue it.

Rob Marris: Would it not be a lot cheaper and simpler to have something 100 m from a bridge that is of the same height and that would form a soft barrier across the roadit could be roughly the height of a heavy goods vehicleso that vehicles would hit the soft barrier instead of the bridge?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but, again, we would not need the proposed amendments to require that. I suspect that the same people who are asking us to agree the amendments would soon come back and introduce ten-minute Bills about street furniture and the clutter on our urban and rural roads if we were to do so. Nevertheless, we would not require the proposed measure to do what has been suggested.

Robert Goodwill: As an HGV driver, I am all too aware of the problems of low bridges. I am sure that the Minister agrees that in most cases of an HGV or double-decker bus driver hitting a low bridge it is an inadvertent act. I am unsure, therefore, whether increasing the penalties would reduce the number of bridge strikes.
	May I suggest that the Minister drive between Wakefield and Doncaster, where there is a low bridge? A beam across the road about half a mile before the bridge warns HGV drivers that they might strike the bridge if they continue. If the Government are serious about wanting to reduce bridge strikes, more such technology should be deployed in other parts of the country.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman makes a constructive suggestion, and we will certainly discuss it with Network Rail. Again, the amendments are not necessary for us to pursue that course of action. I had not appreciated that the hon. Gentleman is an HGV driverI have not seen him floating around the Members' Tea Room with a Yorkie in his handbut he makes a sensible suggestion, which we shall pursue.
	I am not persuaded of the case for special offences in respect of breaching red lights at railway crossings; nor am I persuaded of the case for special offences in respect of bridge strikes. There have, sadly, been many tragic instances on the roads where crossing a red light has had catastrophic consequences for motorists and pedestriansas catastrophic as a collision on a railway crossing. I understand the point about far more people being involved in railway crossing violations, but jumping a red light anywhere could lead to somebody's death, and if it is done in a wilfully it should be treated exactly the same way.

Stephen Hammond: We have again heard the Minister say that he regards the two violations as the same offence. He surely must recognise that there is a major difference between jumping an ordinary red light and jumping a red light at a level crossing. The potential impact and other possibilities are significantly greater than they are for jumping a red light on a normal road, and the consequences thereof need to be accepted and the offence recognised. The point was made both in Committee and on the Floor of the House today that those who commit the offence are usually serial offenders who endanger their own lives and, more importantly, the lives of others at rural level crossings. The magistrates courts need the power to deal with them.

Stephen Ladyman: The point is that the courts do have the power to deal with them. Someone who recklessly endangers the lives of other people should be prosecuted not for jumping a red light but for dangerous driving. The police will prosecute if the evidence can be gathered. If people wilfully jump a red light on a level crossing, it might be dangerous driving, and if they jump the traffic lights around Parliament square they should be prosecuted accordingly.
	I challenge the hon. Gentleman to answer the following case that would be put to him if we were to accept that there is a difference between the two offences. What would he say when a parent brought the photograph of their dead child into this House and said, My daughteror sonwas killed on a street because somebody jumped a red light, and you treat their offence differently from that of somebody who does the exact same on a level crossing? I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman were in my position now, he would find that unanswerable.
	Cases need to be judged on their merits. The police need to take a view on the appropriate offence, and the courts need to take a view on the appropriate sentence. Where a violation is blatant and dangerous, the driving can and should be prosecuted as such, with a significantly higher penalty, including custody, than that which applies to a normal breach of a red light.
	The hon. Gentleman accused me of making promises in Committee that I have not kept. I have to say to him that, again, he is not being entirely accurate. In Committee, I introduced into the Bill the measure that is now clause 50. That amendment had been agreed with, among others, our stakeholdersincluding Network Railin order significantly to improve the safety of level crossings. It is my understanding that Network Rail no longer supports the amendments that are before the House, and that it is happy with the position that has been agreed. In Committee I said that I was sympathetic to the argument that a specific tougher penalty would send a message to lunatics who frequently zig-zag through crossings, possibly endangering the safety of rail passengers, and that if there was evidence of a problem I would be prepared to consider using the subordinate powers under clauses 3 and 4, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to set a higher fixed penalty and a higher penalty points tariff for breaches of red lights at railway crossings.
	I still believe that the current offence of careless and inconsiderate driving with a maximum finesubject, again, to Parliamentary approval for clause 22of 5,000 is sufficient to deal with bridge strikes. In extreme cases where danger is caused to other road users it might be appropriate to prosecute for dangerous driving, but I believe that the power already exists to enable that.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked when the Government became aware of the need for new clause 28. Ministers were made aware of the issue early in September. I do not have a precise date, but if he is interested in knowing the precise date when it was first brought to our attention I am happy to provide it to him. However, I can assure him that as soon as it was brought to our attention Ministers moved rapidly to try to assess the issue.
	The Attorney-General was consulted on whether existing legislation was sufficiently robust before we decided to move to bridge the possible loophole. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who requested this information, that the clauses have been checked by counsel. I promise him that I shall have them checked again before the Bill passes to the other place.
	The loophole is possibly the last of the errors of the disastrous railway privatisation, and we moved to close it as soon as we discovered it. I should of course emphasise to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we will not know whether retrospection will be necessary unless somebody takes a test case to the courts and they confirm our interpretation of the law. It may well be that everything was all right; nevertheless, in our view it was essential to move as rapidly as we did to close any loophole in such an important area of the law.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Driving with Illegal Drugs

'A person who when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other place is found to have traces of an illegal drug in his body shall be guilty of an offence.'. [Mr. Chope.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5 Medical fitness to drive
	'(1) The Motor Cars (Driving Instructions) Regulations 2005 are amended as follows.
	(2) In regulation 5, paragraph (b), after users, insert recognising the dangers posed by driving while medically unfit to drive.
	(3) The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 are amended as follows.
	(4) In regulation 71(1), after paragraph (e) insert
	(f) liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness, faintness or drowsiness caused by a sleep disorder..
	(5) In regulation 71, after paragraph (2) insert
	( ) The disability prescribed in paragraph (1)(c) is prescribed for the purpose of section 92(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Act in relation to an application for a Group 1 or Group 2 licence if the applicant suffering from that disability satisfies the Secretary of State that
	(a) the driving of the vehicle by him in pursuance of the licence is not likely to be a source of danger to the public; and
	(b) he has made adequate arrangements to receive regular medical supervision by a sleep disorder specialist who holds a hospital appointment..'.
	New clause 30 Alcohol limits
	'(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 11(2) the meaning of the prescribed limit is amended as follows
	(a) in paragraph (a) for 35 substitute 22;
	(b) in paragraph (b) for 80 substitute 50; and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for 107 substitute 67.
	(3) In section 8(2) for 50 substitute 35.'.
	New clause 39 Disqualification for drink offence
	'(1) Section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert
	(2A) Subsection (1) above also applies to a person who is disqualified for a period in excess of 12 months on conviction of a relevant drink offence.
	(2B) In this section relevant drink offence means
	(a) an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by careless driving when unfit to drive through drink) committed when unfit to drive through drink,
	(b) an offence under paragraph (b) of that subsection (causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol),
	(c) an offence under paragraph (c) of that subsection (failing to provide a specimen) where the specimen is required in connection with drink or consumption of alcohol,
	(d) an offence under section 4 of that Act (driving or being in charge when under the influence of drink) committed by reason of unfitness through drink,
	(e) an offence under section (5)(1) of that Act (driving or being in charge with excess alcohol),
	(f) an offence under section 7(6) of that Act (failing to provide a specimen) committed in the course of an investigation into an offence within any of the preceding paragraphs, or
	(g) an offence under section 7A(6) of that Act (failing to allow a specimen to be subject to a laboratory test) in the course of an investigation into an offence within any of the preceding paragraphs.'.
	Amendment No. 50, in page 15, clause 14, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert
	'(1) This section applies where
	(a) a person is convicted of a relevant drink offence by or before a court, and
	(b) the period stated by the court as that for which he would be disqualified is not less than six months.'.
	Amendment No. 51, in page 15, leave out from beginning of line 16 to end of line 22 on page 16 and insert
	'(3) Where this section applies, the court shall (subject to subsection 7) make an order (an alcohol ignition interlock programme order) requiring the offender to comply with the alcohol ignition interlock conditions.
	(4) The period which the offender shall comply with the alcohol ignition conditions shall be a period specified in the order of
	(a) not less than six months, and
	(b) not more than two years.
	(5) If the offender contravenes the alcohol ignition interlock conditions, a further order disqualifying him for the rest of the period specified under subsection (4) is to be treated as having been made by the court immediately before the contravention.
	(6) The alcohol ignition interlock conditions are that the offender
	(a) must participate fully in an approved alcohol ignition interlock programme specified for the duration specified in the order, and
	(b) during the period specified in the order, must not drive a motor vehicle unless it is fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock in good working order and must not drive a motor vehicle which is so fitted when not using the alcohol interlock properly, and
	(c) must make due payment of fees for the programme which shall include the cost of the alcohol ignition interlock being provided, fitted and maintained to a motor vehicle.
	(7) A court may decline to make an alcohol interlock programme order if it appears to the court that the offender will not comply with the alcohol ignition interlock conditions in which case the court will specify an additional period of disqualification for a period equal to the period which it would have otherwise ordered the offender to comply with the alcohol ignition conditions.'.
	Amendment No. 53, in page 16, line 11, at end insert 'and
	(c) must make due payment of fees for the programme which shall include the cost of the alcohol ignition interlock being provided, fitted and maintained to a motor vehicle'.
	Amendment No. 52, in page 17, line 4, after 'offender', insert
	'(13) Nothing within this section shall prevent the court from making an order in accordance with section 34.'.
	Amendment No. 54, in page 17, line 16, at end insert 'fitment'.

Christopher Chope: I should say at the outset that a lot people thought that it was already an offence to be at the wheel of a car with illegal substances in one's body, but that is not the law as it stands. We do not tolerate train drivers who have illegal substances in their body when they are driving trains, or airline pilots who have illegal substances in their body when they are at the controls of an aircraft, yet the law seems to be much more relaxed about those who take the controls of motor vehicles on our roads, some of which, as we need not remind ourselves, are very large lorries. New clause 1 would outlaw driving with illegal substances in the body. I am the first to accept that before introducing a new criminal sanction we need to be satisfied that there is a real and serious problem that needs to be addressed, and I hope that the House will accept that there is. Not only thatthe problem is getting worse. Many innocent people are being killed or seriously injured as a result of Parliament's failure to address the problem.
	I began looking into this issue in February last year, when I was the shadow transport Minister taking the lead on road safety matters. The  Southern Daily Echo reported an horrific case in which a driver was jailed after a crash in which he killed a young Bournemouth university student on the first day of their university career. That accident occurred because the driver, whose vehicle hit the student's car head on, had been under the influence of amphetaminesan illegal drugwhich he had been taking to try to keep awake. Although taking amphetamines may have that short-term effect, when it wears off a state of acute drowsiness occurs. That is what happened in that case, and a young life was lost on our roads as a result of a driver with illegal drugs in his system.
	Sadly, such an occurrence is far from unique. In 2000, the Transport Research Laboratory published data on the percentage of drivers killed in motor accidents who had illegal drugs in their body. I was amazed to discover that 22.9 per cent. of drivers killed in motor accidents had illegal drugs in their body.

Paul Rowen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means in his new clause by traces? In dealing with other drugs such as alcohol, we state the limit. Does he accept that this is an open-ended clause that could lead to anybody being done, as with athletes who have minor traces of a drug in their body which has no effect on performance whatever?

Christopher Chope: The question of the amount of the drug is obviously a matter for mitigation, but as the hon. Gentleman may know, at the moment, a train driver who has traces of an illegal drug in their body is guilty of an offence and will probably lose their job immediately. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a history of being slightly soft on this subject, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that, at the moment, there is a big anomaly, and that there is everything to be said, in terms of road safety, for putting those who drive other vehicles on a par with those who drive trains or pilot aircraft.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Irelandunfortunately, the road traffic accident statistics there are even more horrific than in other parts of the United Kingdomthe second highest cause of death on our roads is drivers with illegal substances along with alcohol found in their body? Indeed, illegal drugs are increasingly the problem and are rapidly overtaking alcohol. Does he accept my support for his new clause, having regard to that information?

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Increasingly there is evidence that this is not an either/or situation: it is not a question of illegal drugs or excess alcohol. Often, drugs are mixed with alcohol and although the level of the latter might be below the legal limit, the concoction is lethal and radically affects such people's ability to drive.

David Burrowes: I commend the intentions behind the new clause. As a practising criminal solicitor for a number of years, I know the problems that prosecutors face in seeking to mount a successful prosecution of someone charged with driving while unfit through the use of drugs. In particular, properly proving that someone has cannabis in their system, and that it makes them unfit to drive, is a real issue. I know that those who have successfully defended such cases have been sympathetic to the problems faced by the prosecution. When someone has traces of cannabis in their body, it is often difficult to determine whether that is because they passively smoked it as a passenger in a car in which it was being smoked, or whether they were actively smoking it.

Christopher Chope: If the driver has traces of an illegal substance in his body, he would be guilty of an offence under the new clause. My hon. FriendI hope that he will have the chance to make a proper contribution to this debate and to bring his experience to bearseems to be saying that there are circumstances in which the detection equipment might falsely indicate that somebody had smoked cannabis when in fact they had merely been in the presence of somebody smoking it. I hope that the law will be able to distinguish between such cases.

Lee Scott: Given the fact that, unfortunately, so many young people are using illegal substances, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to place a zero-tolerance ban on the use of such substances while people are driving? Many lives are being taken, as the Minister mentioned earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a ban would prevent some of the horrific loss of life that we have seen in recent times?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and I agree with him 100 per cent. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and I first raised this issue in Committee before the last general election. We were keen to resurrect it, and new clause 1 was tabled as long ago as Easter, so that we could ensure a debate on Report.

Humfrey Malins: May I add my wholehearted support for the new clause? My hon. Friend will know that I sit as a part-time judge, so I recognise the scourge of illegal drugs. Any message that we in this House can send that somebody should not drive with any illegal substance inside them is a powerful and good message.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Knowing that he sits as a part-time judge, I feel that his support is worth perhaps even more than that of just one hon. Member, because he brings to this debate a great wealth of experience.
	If there is still anyone in the Chamber who has any doubt about the gravity of this matter or about the growth in drug-driving, I commend to them TRL report No. 495, because it shows that since the 1980s the incidence of alcohol in road accident fatalities has decreased, while the incidence of drugs has risen from just over 7 per cent. to more than 22 per cent.and who can doubt that it is probably even higher now?
	In July this year,  Auto Trader, that well known magazine for those who are interested in buying or selling motor vehicles, surveyed 2,100 motorists. One in seven of those surveyed admitted driving under the influence of illegal drugs, and one in 15 admitted having had an accident or a near miss while so doing. That is pretty compelling evidence. These are people who are responding to a survey and admitting to that culpable behaviour. It may not be illegal behaviour, but they are admitting to culpable behaviour and also to having taken illegal drugs.
	Unfortunately, that survey has been corroborated by other surveys. In June this year, More Thn, a well known insurance company, surveyed more than 1,000 people between the ages of 25 and 35, and 21 per cent. of that sample admitted driving after taking drugs.

Peter Bone: The crux of the issue is that The Highway Code has a prescribed limit for alcohol, but with regard to drugs says only that one must not drive under the influence of drugs and that taking illegal drugs is highly dangerous. My hon. Friend's point that there should be zero tolerance on this is totally welcome.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. In case anyone thinks that this is just an English problem, I should say that it is also a problem in Scotland. In 2000, a report published by the Scottish Executive central research unit under the title Recreational drugs and driving: a qualitative study showed that 85 per cent. of club-goers in Scotland had at some time driven after using illegal drugs. I do not know whether that is just because of the cost or unavailability of buses or the cost of taxis in Scotland, but it is a pretty staggering statistic.
	We may not need to go into the following area, but does drug use affect one's driving? The British Medical Association has the following opinion:
	The known effects of cannabis are that it can impair co-ordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Impairment is also shown when subjects are tested under simulated driving conditions. Studies report that the majority of fatal cases with detected levels of cannabis are compounded by alcohol. Alcohol alone, or in combination with cannabis, increased impairment, accident rate and accident responsibility.

John Leech: Given the hon. Gentleman's position of zero tolerance on drugs, would he also support a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol?

Christopher Chope: My policy is zero tolerance on illegality. At the moment it is not illegal in this country to consume alcohol. It is not illegal yet to smoke, although I see in tonight's  Evening Standard that it is proposed to make it illegal to smoke in the open air in London. That is barking and disproportionate. What I am talking about is what I see as a serious issue of people who are taking illegal substances, thereby committing a criminal offence in itself, and then compounding that by driving motor vehicles when they are likely to be impaired as a result of having taken those drugs, sometimes with alcohol, sometimes without, sometimes with a series of different drugs. Fortunately, the police are taking it increasingly seriously. The effect of cannabis and other drugs on people's state of mind is an issue on which medical and expert opinion has changed dramatically over recent years as a result of what we have seen in our streets and towns where people have committed major crimes as a result of being drug-crazed.

David Kidney: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making his case so powerfully. There is a serious problem with people driving under the influence of drugs. There is an offence already of driving when ability is impaired by drink or drugs, and to date the main problem in enforcement has been the absence of a roadside test that is accurate enough in detecting the presence of drugs in a person's body. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to deal with how we will detect, and therefore enforce his proposed law?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hope to deal with that point. To conclude the last point, I should just add that this summer Cleveland police felt it necessary to take out television advertising in their area in order to warn drivers about the consequences of taking drugs and then getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.
	The Government recognise that we have a serious problem and that is why under schedule 7 to the Road Traffic Act 2003 new powers were provided for the police to carry out impairment tests at the roadside. The problem is that the equipment for doing that is not up to the job, and we also have evidence from a study by Glasgow university that in one third of cases the equipment is not even capable of detecting those who have illegal drugs in their system.
	To take up the hon. Gentleman's point, new equipment is now available. It is colloquially called a drugalyser, and it is already being used effectively in Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and, for all I know, in other countries as well. It is, in essence, a hand-held device. It can detect cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine, and from one swab of saliva a police officer can test for a single drug in 90 seconds at the roadside, and he can test for more complex cocktails in six minutes. That is pretty astonishing to me, and it shows the extent to which the new technology has changed over the past couple of years, which we as legislators should take into account. It was a change in technology some 39 years ago that really led to the change in the law, replacing the impairment test for driving with drink in the system with a test for excess alcohol, because we could measure the amount of alcohol in the blood or in the breath.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am listening carefully, because the hon. Gentleman has an extremely important point to make. However, I am a little worried that he does not seem to be addressing the problem of people who take medicinal drugs and do not treat them as though they have an effect on their driving ability when it is clear that they do. Does he envisage some extension beyond simply the drugs that he has mentioned so that the amount of other drugs in the bloodstream can be assessed?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I would like the Government to acknowledge this issue first, which is about illegal drugs, although it is important in road safety education that we should emphasise that people who are taking prescribed drugs should be very careful about continuing to carry on their recreational or professional driving. The Government have done some work on the issue, and there has been some talk about new labelling on some prescribed drugs to warn about their effect and about possible impairment while driving, but that is a large and separate issue. If the House will forgive me, I do not want to go down that route, because there is a more easily detectable and distinct area of criminality. I do not want to criminalise people who are on prescription drugs and who unwittingly find that those drugs adversely affect their driving, whereas people who deliberately take illegal drugs and then go driving are more culpable.
	Returning to 1967, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was one year old, the Road Safety Act introduced the breathalyser and the concept of making it illegal to drive with excess alcohol. The legislation recognised that proving impairment by making people walk along a white line, which required police officers to supervise, monitor and assess the test, was disproportionate to the problem on the roads, which involved too many drivers having excess alcohol in their blood and on their breath. The law was altered to reflect changing technology and a change in society, which wanted a tougher line to be taken.
	The situation is similar 39 years later. We have an increasing problem of people driving after having taken illegal drugs, which has resulted in carnage on the roads. For example, the RAC Foundation has said that one of the main contributory factors to the large increase in fatalities among young people on the roads is the use of the dangerous cocktail of drugs and alcohol.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, but I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen). The hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the 1967 legislation, which concerns excess alcohol in the blood. The problem involves the thresholds for such measurements, because some illegal drugs, such as heroin, can be present in the body for between three and six months after use. I suspect that most medical experts would recognise that the presence of heroin in the body of someone who last used the drug three months earlier would not impair their driving. Although the act of taking the drug is illegal, it would be made a further illegal act under new clause 1.

Christopher Chope: Many people take the view that their driving is not impaired when they are over the excess alcohol limit. In order to cut through such arguments, Parliament decided to introduce an arbitrary cut-off limit, which relates to a lawful substance. However, we are discussing unlawful and illegal substances, the possession or use of which are criminal offences in themselves. If we were to introduce a law under the umbrella of road traffic legislation that deterred people from taking illegal drugs, a double benefit would arise. We are not comparing like with like when we compare alcohol with drugs, because one substance is lawful and the other is not.
	As I have said, it is already illegal to take such drugs, so if people take illegal drugs and get behind the wheel of a car, lorry or motorcycle, why should it not be an offence? New clause 1 would send out a strong message about the use of illegal drugs. One consequence of the 1967 Act was that Parliament gave an excuse to the weak-willed who were pressurised into drinking and driving. It allowed them to say, I am sorry, but I am not going to have another drink, because I am going to drive. If we pass new clause 1 into law tonight, we will send clubbers and other young people a similar message, which will allow them to turn to their friends and say, I am not going to take any drugs, because I am going to be at the wheel of a car tonight and do not want to cause an accident or injury, to lose my licence or to suffer a penalty. New clause 1 would reinforce some important messages.
	It is encouraging that my proposal has attracted wide support. More than 90 per cent. of those surveyed by  Auto Trader acknowledged that drug-driving is dangerous; 80 per cent. acknowledged that punishments for drug-drivers are too lenient; and 80 per cent. supported roadside testing for drugs. Perhaps most encouragingly of all, the insurance firm More Thn found that if we were to introduce roadside tests, more than one third of those who were surveyed and who currently take drugs and drive would be deterred from so doing, which would result in a one third reduction in drug-driving at a stroke. That would be a substantial win for road safety, which is sufficient justification for new clause 1 in itself. The RAC 2006 motoring report states that 55 per cent. of respondents named drug-driving as one of the top three road safety issues, and the RAC believes that drug-driving could be as prevalent and dangerous as drink-driving.
	Today, a demonstration has taken place outside Parliament by people who think that we do not discuss the issues that matter to the British people. This debate is an example of an issue that affects the British people. The issue is getting worse, and it has affected so many lives and caused untold misery. I therefore hope that Opposition Members and Government Members will not hesitate to support new clause 1.

David Kidney: About three years ago, I chaired a conference for the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safetyalthough I no longer chair the conference, I am still a memberon drug-driving. On the day, the big issue was the one that I raised in my intervention on the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about reliable forms of roadside detection for use by the police. At that conference, a manufacturer made a presentation about the latest product, which is used to perform the tests that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch has said, are available in some European Union countries.
	I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which included a requirement for the police to test for drugs when releasing people from custody, whether or not the offence with which such people had been charged or arrested involved drugs. Stafford police station was one of the pilots for that testing, which allowed me to see what was then the up-to-date technology. I made several visits over a period of months, during which time the technology changed from the analysis of swabs taken from inside the mouth to the analysis of swabs taken from the sweat on the palm of someone's hand, so the technology is developing all the time. As the hon. Member for Christchurch has said, the technology is catching up, and it allows us to introduce a provision such as new clause 1. However, I suspect that a final product is a little way away, and we need to obtain approvals similar to those for breath tests for alcohol.
	We also need to debate the precise wording of the law. I have been impressed by the arguments about thresholds, and we need to debate the issues of people who take legally prescribed drugs that contain as a base a drug that is illegal in another form and people whose blood contains a low level of a drug that would not impair a driver. I await the Minister's response to those points with interest.
	New clause 30 concerns drink-driving and the legal limit for alcohol in a driver's blood, urine or breath. Today's amendment stands in the names of several Liberal Democrat Members. I tabled similar amendments to the previous Bill that we debated before the general election. The Minister will see that I have given up trying to persuade him to accept such an amendment. I recognise that his objection is solid, but that does not mean that I agree with his judgment that we do not need to change the law. In summary, his view is this: we have a robust law with firm penalties, but some people exceed the maximum legal limit by a great deal and cause many deaths, so they are the top priority for enforcement, and when we have got them off our roads to a satisfactory degree, perhaps we can consider changing the limit.
	I think that my hon. Friend is wrong. I do not see any evidence that we are targeting our policing efforts on catching those people. The number of police officers responsible for policing the roads is not going up appreciably; neither is the number of breath tests carried out by police forces each year. In Committee, I tabled an amendment to give the police a new power on the targeted use of breath tests in order to catch the very people whom my hon. Friend has talked about, but he resisted it. I see no signs that we are cracking down on that group. If, as he suggests, we must wait until we have got on top of that problem, we will never address the issue raised by new clause 30. In the meantime, people are dying on our roads because there are people just exceeding the current limit who would, by any reasonable estimate, adjust their drinking and driving if the law were changed. PACTS commissioned a study that found that reducing the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save about 65 lives a year and save about 230 people a year from serious injury. That is why most of the road safety lobby and the British Medical Association support an amendment such as new clause 30.
	Although my hon. Friend can be congratulated on some further reductions in road casualties in the 2005 statistics, and although one of those is a fall in fatalities due to drink-driving since 2004, I hope that he will not rely on that as an argument for his approach. In 1998, there was a low of 460 in the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving. In 2000, that figure rose to 530, and by 2004 it had reached 590. There is a clear trend of rising deaths owing to drink-driving. In 2005, there was at last a reduction to 560, but that is still high by historical standards, and at a time when the overall figures are showing a reduction in people killed and seriously injured year on year. Something is seriously wrong when drink-driving deaths are not falling in line with all the other reductions.

Stephen Ladyman: Even on the figures that my hon. Friend has given us, if 65 people had between 50 and 80 mg of alcohol in their blood, 495 had more than 80 mg. That is why I argue that at this stage it is better to try to deal with the 495 than to worry about the 65.

David Kidney: That is a false choice. There are several areas in which we must take action to keep the trend in road deaths going downwards. My point is that the trend in drink-driving deaths is not going downwards, unlike all the others. More therefore needs to be done in terms of lowering the drink-drive limit, giving the police the power of targeted breath testing at the roadside to detect these people, rehabilitating drink-driving offenders, and introducing an alco-locks pilot. All those together, as a programme, will make a difference. The Minister is saying, Until I've solved one problem, I'm not going to look at the others. That is a blinkered approach to saving lives on our roads.

David Drew: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is that the group of people with whom we are dealing are the very same as those who may well have taken an illegal substance or abused prescribed medicines, and while they may not have taken an excessive amount of alcohol, the three elements together could be calamitous.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who echoes the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). That cocktail effect is a particularly dangerous set of circumstances in putting people's lives at risk on the road.
	When Parliament introduced a law against drinking and driving, it was resisted by some people at the time but has become widely accepted, and most people now regard drinking and driving as socially unacceptable. We have won that argument. We have reduced the number of deaths on our roads, but not, in recent years, the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving. In the meantime, most countries have overtaken us by adopting a limit of 50 mg in blood instead of our limit of 80 mg. I am not suggesting that we have to follow others, but we are falling behind the rest of the civilised world in our limits despite having led the way in introducing them in the first place. The Minister should give more thought to ensuring that combating deaths due to drinking and driving is part of the Government's overall programme, so that deaths on our roads decrease in every respect.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) on tabling the new clause, which represents our policy on the previous incarnation of the Bill which fell at the general election.
	Research shows that almost a quarter of those killed in road traffic accidents have illegal drugs in their bloodstream. There have been an increasing number of accidents in which the presence of drugs in the driver's body may have been a contributory factor in the cause of the crash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, drug-driving is most common among 20 to 24-year-olds, and clubbers are particularly prone to taking control of a car in a chemically altered state. As a survey by the Scottish Executive showed, well over 80 per cent. of clubbers have driven after recreational drug use, often under the misguided apprehension that drugs can improve their driving skills. In fact, as the BMA and other authorities have shown, commonly taken illegal drugs such as cannabis cause concentration to wander, affect reaction times, and can cause paranoia, drowsiness, distorted perception and a sense of disorientation, all of which could lead to loss of control at the wheel.
	Cannabis is the most commonly traced drug, with more than 800,000 people travelling under its influence every year. A study produced by the Transport Research Laboratory established that people who drove a car at 66 mph had a stopping distance of about 270 ft, but after smoking a joint that increased on average by 15 per cent. to 310 ft. In a slalom test, those who had just smoked a joint knocked over 30 per cent. more cones. Similarly, cocaine is a psychostimulant that leads to misjudging driving speeds and stopping distances and gives a distorted sense of light and sound and a feeling of overconfidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned amphetamines, but ketamines, LSD and magic mushrooms also strongly influence the senses and give drivers a sense of unreality, placing themselves and other road users in danger.
	As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, there has been a problem with detection, but I understand that detection methods have dramatically improved. It could be said that one advantage of these drugs is that they remain detectable for longer than alcohol. The urine test EMITenzyme-multiplied immunoassay techniquecan establish the presence of amphetamines for up to two to four days; that of barbiturates for a day and of long-acting barbiturates for two to three weeks; that of cannabinoids for three to 30 days; that of cocaine for two to four days; that of opiates for two to four days, and that of anabolic steroids for up to 14 days. The technology has moved on and my hon. Friends' proposals are therefore considerably more practical.
	We have slipped behind other countries. A meeting of the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety took place in 2002, with representatives of 16 nations and 12 US states. It established that most statutes required proof of impairment owing to the use of an illegal drug. That legislative approach has been difficult to enforce, because proving that the drug caused the impairment has been a major problem. Germany, Belgium and eight US states have established a per se law, which avoids having to prove impairment due to the drug. That approach allows the prosecution to be based solely on the analytic detection of drugs in body fluids such as blood or urine.
	The Belgian experience shows how a country got a grip on the problem, developed a strategic plan, gradually changed legislation, overcame a myriad political problems and implemented a comprehensive drug-driving strategy. The result is that, sadly, we have fallen behind. The detection rate for drug-driving is much higher in Norway750 cases per million inhabitants. In Finland, it is 190 cases per million inhabitants; in Sweden, it is 90 cases per million, whereas we are down at 30 cases per million. Conservative Members believe that the technology has caught up. Other countries have shown what can be done and we will support new clause 1 if it is pressed to a vote.
	The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) is not here and perhaps she will therefore not press new clause 5.  [Interruption.] Indeed, perhaps she has fallen asleep. A diagnosed narcoleptic is required to declare his condition to the DVLA and failure to do so voids his insurance cover. The DVLA will generally issue a temporary licence to a narcoleptic, renewable every three years, provided that the applicant's GP can satisfy the DVLA that the condition is controlled by treatment. If that were properly enforced, it would appear to cover the intention of new clause 5. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments on that.
	I had a most interesting visit to an organisation called TTC groupTelford Training Consultantsduring the recess. It managed to get itself on the front page of our local papers by pointing out that the new pub opening hours were sweeping up a large number of people who were unaware that, although they behaved responsibly, they had alcohol in their blood that put them over the limit. I was told of a case of a highly responsible persona police constablewho had gone out for a curry, been measured in the amount that he drank, deliberately gone to bed at 10 o'clock, got up for an early shift, but unfortunately had a bump and was found to be over the limit. The visit showed the importance of education.
	I was especially struck by two points. First, 10 years ago, wines were 9 per cent. alcohol by volume whereas they now average 12.5 to 13 per cent. Secondly, the group presented an interesting demonstration about glasses. The standard measure is 125 ml but people are frequently offered 250 ml as a standard or small glass. I cannot believe that many hon. Members in the Chamber would want to offer their friends a small drink. However, 250 ml is nearly half a pint. The group did a demonstration with differently shaped glasses. The shapes were deceptive. I benefited from that brief introduction, and it was proved that re-educating offenders reduced recidivism by 50 per cent. Such courses are of low cost to the taxpayer. Those who go on them have to pay 100 and 150. I would prefer to go down that route rather than chase a tight target.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for Stafford has spent much time on the matter, which he raised in Committee. However, trying to reduce the figure from 80 mg to 50 mg when we are struggling to enforce 80 mg is not the right way to proceed. I should like the effort to be put into re-education, and I believe that the Government share that view.
	Bluntly, we need more traffic policemen. They have declined from 9,201 in 1997 to 7,103. Conservative Members believe that more active enforcement is the way ahead. Let us get 80 mg established. We have made massive progress, but rather than trying to screw the figure down to 50 mg, education and more active enforcement are more sensible uses of Government time.
	The retesting requirement in new clause 39 would not be used in the context of testing skills but is simply an addition to section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which lists convictions, and requires, after obligatory or discretionary disqualification, the court to instruct the person who has been convicted to take another test. I do not like the idea of taking a driving test being part of the punishment. Again, I prefer the route of education. The little bit of extra research that I have done since I went to Telford convinced me that education would be more effective.
	Amendment No. 51 deals with alco-locks. The matter was raised in Committee and Conservative Members' opinion has not changed. I know that the Minister does not like my rattling off stuff from the internet so I shall not go into detail at length. Evidence from the United States, Australia and Canada shows a 40 per cent. or even a 90 per cent. reduction in the rate of drink-driving repeat offences. However, that appears to happen only as long as the alco-locks are in place. In Europe, where we are only beginning to establish such programmes, the Swedes have a programme with 900 drink-driving offenders, but because they have been so strict, almost a third of the participants have dropped out. France is about to introduce a pilot project in Annecy and we have not even started. We fear that the programmes are a bit of a distraction.
	In Belgium, the Belgian Institute for Road Safety has produced a report. Under the heading, Effectiveness. Has the project reached its objective?, it reported that no project results were available for evaluation. We believe that it is a little early to decide about such projects. They could be a distraction and, again, we would like the effort put into re-education because when the locks are removed, we believe that the hardcore cases will revert. We are also convinced that a strong sentencea short, sharp shockcould be more effective.
	That is a quick canter through our thoughts on the group of the amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: Although I want to confine the bulk of my remarks to the new clauses and amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, we have had a good debate on the amendments that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) tabled and I want to contribute to that.
	The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) approaches the matter from much the same viewpoint as me. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the issue that the hon. Member for Christchurch raises, it struck me that current provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 catch many of the different scenarios relating to driving while unfit through the influence of drink or drugs that he outlined. Some related practical matters require further attention and I shall deal with them shortly. However, I continue to be worried by the lack of precision in new clause 1 to enable individual citizens to regulate their conduct according to it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) sought clarification of a trace. That can vary greatly between drugs. My recollection from my days of studying forensic medicine some years ago is that lysergic acid, for example, can remain traceable in the body for up to six months. Reference has also been made to heroin, which can remain in the body for between three and six months.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no mention in new clause 1 of the amount of the illegal drug. Would he accept, however, that no minimum sentence would be attached to such an offence either? Someone with a trace of such a drug in their body that was deemed by experts to be fairly minimal could therefore be dealt with appropriately by the courts.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is a perfectly fair point. However, I do not think that we should be quite so blas about creating offences that would have enormous resource implications for the courts and for police time if the benefit to be derived from them were not proportionate. If we sought to prosecute everyone who was found to be driving with a trace of an illegal drug in their body, it would take up an enormous amount of court timeand to what effect?
	We are dealing with the Road Safety Bill, and it is entirely appropriate that we should have regard to the test that we have always had: that of a person's fitness to drive being impaired through the use of drink or drugs. Drink and drugs are relevant to road safety because they impair a person's fitness to drive, and once we move away from that simple test, we open up a whole range of conduct for examination. It would be very easy for someone to say that they did not know that there would still be a trace of drink or drugs in their bloodstream.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to train drivers and pilots, but I cannot recall the existence of any criminal offence in that context. If he can enlighten me on that, I will be interested, but I cannot think of an instance in which a pilot or train driver would be guilty of a criminal offence merely by having a trace of drink or drugs in their body. If he or she were unfit to drive or fly through having used them, that would of course be a different matter. Pilots, train drivers and others who are found, through a workplace testing scheme, to have a trace of an illegal drug in their system are often caught by their employer's disciplinary procedures, but that does not involve a criminal offence. Once we start to blur the distinction between a criminal offence and a disciplinary offence under employment law, we will be going down a dangerous track.
	I should like to say a word or two in defence of the present approach in road traffic law, which places the emphasis on impairment and unfitness to drive. This point was also made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), and I am sorry that he is no longer here, because, as a court practitioner, he has an important contribution to make to the debate. In practical terms, there is usually a reasonable ground for a driver to be stoppednormally that of erratic or defective driving. Thereafter, a breath test will almost certainly be carried out. If that test is negative, the police officer involved should surely look for another reason for the impairment. All sorts of other symptoms might be present, including dilated pupils or slurred speech, depending on the illegal substance in question. My recollection from my time as a criminal court solicitor and as a prosecutor is that a lengthy checklist is gone through, which would thereafter entitle the officer to arrest the person and take them back to the police station where the full impairment test could be undertaken.
	As the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly said, a number of much more sophisticated devices are now on the market, and I hope that they will be tested and, if appropriate, approved for use by the Department for Transport. All these factors will improve the workability of the present law on unfitness to drive as a result of the use of drink or drugs. I am not without sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I certainly do not underestimate the scale of the difficulty facing us in relation to drug- driving, but I remain to be convinced that his new clause is the panacea that he suggests. It could create problems as well as solutions.

Peter Bone: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the testing equipment is not good enough to trace drugs, or that the new clause is not a good proposal because it uses the term traces of illegal drugs? Would he be happier if a limit, such as that relating to alcohol consumption, were included in the proposal?

Alistair Carmichael: No, I approach this from the point of view of first principles. The reason why we arrived at what has been described as the rather arbitrary limit for alcohol was that it was decided that that was the level at which a driver's ability to respond would be impaired. The question of a limit is therefore consistent with the general approach of punishing those who drive while unfit through their taking of drink or drugs. I cannot as yet envisage a mechanism by which it would be possible to set a similar level for illegal substances. It might happen, but I think that it is highly unlikely. We shall probably always rely on the question of fitness to drive in relation to drug-driving. There is a lot more to be done on the training of police officers, prosecutors and the judiciary as to what constitutes fitness to drive while under the influence of drugs, but to depart from the principle of assessing fitness in the way proposed in the new clause is unnecessary and would be a step too far.
	The hon. Member for Stafford referred to new clause 30, which he supported tonight. Indeed, he has supported similar proposals many times in the past. He has already made many of the points that I was going to make, and I shall not reiterate them. The Department for Transport has demonstrated through its own research that there could be a reduction of about 50 fatalities and 250 serious injuries per year if the Government were to adopt this measure. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that the Minister sets up a false choice by suggesting that we can target either those who are grossly over the limit or those who fall into the rather narrower band. I happen to think that, for very little additional effort and use of resources by the police and the prosecution services, it would be worth saving those 50 lives and preventing those 250 serious injuries every year. As the hon. Gentleman also said, the proposed lower limit would bring the United Kingdom into line with virtually every other country in western Europe.
	New clause 39 would bring within the ambit of section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 all those offences that involve driving while under the influence of alcohol. We are proposing a fairly measured response here, by seeking to introduce a requirement for someone who has been disqualified from driving for a drink-driving offence to re-sit their driving test before they are given their licence back. The proposal would apply to anyone who received a sentence of disqualification in excess of the minimum 12-month period under section 5 of that Act. This reflects a practice that has already been adopted in many courts up and down the country in all the jurisdictions that make up the United Kingdom.
	We should also have regard to how road traffic law has developed in a wider context. There is something profoundly anomalous about a new driver with six points on his or her licence, as a result of perhaps two speeding offences, being required to re-sit the test as a result of the new drivers' regulations while somebody who has been convicted of a drink-driving offence that merits more than the minimum sentence of disqualification does not have to go through the same procedure.
	Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 52 and 54 deal with the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, or AILs, which the Government are, bravely and quite rightly, bringing into use through the Bill. However, I have severe reservations about how they are doing that, because introducing the use of AILsor alco-locks, as they are more colloquially knownas a mechanism by which somebody might reduce the period of disqualification sends out the worst possible signal. The development of those devices offers us particular opportunities, but we are in danger of missing them by using AILs in the way that the Government suggest.
	The amendments propose a period following disqualification in which the AIL would be fitted at the disqualified person's expense, thereafter ensuring a continued period of protection for the public following the expiry of that disqualification. The proposal is not, I would suggest, a silver bullet. It is not foolproof and there are certain ways to get round it, but I say to the Minister that it would be a further defence that would enable the effort to be targeted on those who pose the greatest risk to our communitiesthe repeat offenders.
	By erecting that further barrier and by making things difficult for such people, we would have the opportunity to reduce the number of people who come before the courts as repeat drink-drivers. That has been borne out by research in other parts of the world. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) touched on that in referring to a 90 per cent. reduction. That is, in fact, a 90 per cent. reduction in reoffending rates, which the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada found to have taken place after the trial of an AIL in that jurisdiction. That also follows the experience in a number of states in the United States, which have also taken results-based decisions to use AILs following trials.
	We commend and support the Government on the introduction of AILs through the Bill, but we believe that the manner in which they want to use them is not appropriate and can be improved. I hope that the Government will give the closest possible consideration to the improvements outlined in our amendments Nos. 50 to 54.

Robert Syms: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and new clause 1. Technology has moved on, and we know that drugs are a real problem on the road. I would like to hear from the Minister that there will at least be more trials, or indeed more public education, on this very important subject.
	On the whole, Britain does not have a bad record in terms of the number of people killed on the roads. Not that long ago, the figure was 5,000 a year, but we have got it down to about 3,200. However, over the last two or three years, we seem to have been stuck at that number. If we are to drive that figure down further, which I think is what we all want, we must focus on the reasons for people being killed on the roads. Drugs are an important cause, as is alcohol and, in particular, the hard core who break the current limit. We have to get much tougher with them. We must also consider tyres, weather conditions, road design and layout, and tiredness, all of which contribute.
	One consequence of relying a lot more on speed cameras and redeploying people from traffic policing is that, although we might catch more people speeding, we do not have the traffic policemen to look out for tyres, tiredness and the other factors that sometimes cause accidents. My hon. Friend raised an important point in that context.
	There are still doubts about the technology, and we have heard concerns about the level of drugs in blood, but it is time that the House sent a message. We ought to be trialling a lot more. The most compelling argument that my hon. Friend made is that youngsters put under peer pressure to take drugs could say, No, I'm driving tonight. I am taking you home and I'm not going to do it.
	We have seen a sea change in terms of drink-driving because people accept that the current level is fair, and because when those who are driving are asked whether they want another drink before they leave the pub, there is no argumentpeople accept that driving is a sound reason for not drinking to excess. We have changed attitudes on that issue, and we have to change attitudes on drug taking, as well as to the practice of people taking cocktails of drugs and alcohol and thinking that they can get away with it.
	A lot more has to be done. I hope that the Minister will at least say that he has listened to what my hon. Friend said and perhaps make some Government proposals on this important matter. We need to drive the number of deaths on the roads down from the figure of 3,200 that we seem to be stuck at, and we need to consider the range of issues that I have raised if we are to achieve that.

Stephen Ladyman: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about the figure for road deaths being stuck at about 3,200. If he looks at the figures for the last two or three years, he will see that they are again on a downward trend. Of course, once a number of road deaths is reachedalbeit one that is still way too high; I acknowledge that immediatelythat is, compared with the distances travelled, the lowest in the world, it becomes increasingly difficult to reduce the figure. We must expect that, and we must expect the rate of improvement to slow. Nevertheless, we still have that rate of improvement, and the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that messages about drugs and about drug taking and driving will play a key part.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we need to do more to get the message across. I say to him that, to get the message over on drug-driving, we try to target those who are most likely to be drug-drivers. I might be wrong, but I do not think that Conservative Members of Parliament are a target group for that message, but young people are, so we target it on the radio channels that young people listen to, pop concerts and other places where young people congregate.
	Our evidence suggests that we are pretty good at targeting those messages, and we hit that target group, but does that go far enough? No, it does not. So, let me say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that I entirely agree with the sentiments that he has put to us tonight. If I was in a position to tell the House that there is a robust method of detection and that there is agreement that there is a correlation between the level of a drug in someone's system and the level of impairment when driving, I would be here with a Government proposal to introduce the measures to the House. However, we do not have that robust system of detection and we do not have that agreement on what is an appropriate level of drug taking to indicate impairment. We are somewhat stuck over a way to move forward.
	The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the new clause, essentially told the House, Look, we don't have agreement on what an appropriate level is, so let's just say it's any level. If it's any level, you're breaking the law. That is entirely inconsistent with existing legislation, which requires a level of impairment. In a moment, I shall come on to the problems of detecting the amount of drugs in somebody's system, but I also suggest that a key problem with detection is exactly what is being detected.
	The active ingredient of cannabis spends only a short period in the blood. Detection systems therefore tend not to detect the active ingredient that would impair driving. Detection systems detect a metabolite of cannabis that stays in the blood for a long time. The presence of that metabolite in someone's system does not, however, mean that their driving performance would be impaired; it simply means that they have used cannabis at some time in the previous few days. If one is trying to devise a detection system for an employer who wants to make sure that none of his employees has ever used drugs, it is a perfectly acceptable test. The presence of the metabolite allows one to say that the person has used drugs, although one does not know whether they used them yesterday or last week. Therefore, if an employer has a policy not to employ those who use drugs, he can say that he will no longer employ that person. If one is trying to test whether someone's ability to drive a car is impaired, however, testing for that metabolite is not reasonable. That is one of the key problems with detection.

Robert Goodwill: Does not the Minister think that, in practice, the Crown Prosecution Service will take a view based on how successful litigation has been? While it is illegal, for example, to steal things in this country, one is unlikely to be prosecuted for stealing an orange, but more likely to be prosecuted for stealing a lorry full of oranges. The CPS will take a view based on the amount of drug or metabolite in the person's system, as well as on whether the person was stopped for a tail light being out or where multiple injuries were involved. Does not he think that legal cases would set the norm for such prosecutions?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he is tempting us into a minefield where the courts would be asked to judge whether somebody's driving had been impaired as a result of drug use that may have happened some considerable time previously or passively rather than actively. I am told by the lawyers that it is possession of drugs that is illegal in this country, and that if they are in one's system, one is not legally in possession of them. It is not as if a body of case law exists to suggest that because people have particular metabolites in their system the courts may take a view on whether they have been using drugs, as they will not necessarily have broken the law or be prosecutable for it.
	I have been speaking about cannabis, but there is a panoply of different drugs that could impair one's performance. Many of the comprehensive sample tests, such as sweat, saliva, urine or hair, are not technically accurate for several drug groups. Where a blood sample is taken, analysis for all the drug groups can be very expensive, and costs about 1,000 per blood sample. How much resource are we going to devote to that when, with the best will in the world, resources are limited?
	The hon. Member for Christchurch seemed to imply that many robust technologies can be used for roadside testing. I take issue with him on that. The Home Office takes a view on such matters, and studies them regularly. Its view is that there is not a robust test that can be used at the roadside. Between 2003 and 2005, a major European Union project known as ROSITA II was carried out to evaluate the usability and analytical reliability of onsite saliva drug-testing devices. Although that was an EU project, it also involved some non-European countries. At the end of the study, it was concluded that no device was reliable enough to be recommended for roadside screening of drivers. The report acknowledged that experience in the state of Victoria, Australia, had shown that random roadside oral fluid testing of drivers for methamphetamine and cannabis had had a deterrent effect, but also pointed to the risk that drivers will realise that the tests being used are limited, and will therefore feel more confident about driving without risk of detection. They will then start to use the drugs that are not included in the panoply of roadside tests. If we send out the message that we can test only for cannabis and methamphetamine, we can expect drivers who have been using cocaine and other drugs to take to the road.
	Unlike with alcohol, there is no clear relationship between the amount of drug taken and its impairing effect, with large variability between individuals who have taken the same dose. Issues of drug tolerance and withdrawal are additional problems. Some studies have found that the risk of crashing for drivers with cannabis in their systems is lower than for drivers with no drugs in their systems. Other studies find that the risk of crashing for such drivers is between one and a half and two and a half times that for sober divers. Evidence about the crash risks associated with benzodiazepines is also mixed. The level of risk tends to vary with the type of benzodiazepine and how long the driver had been using it, with the greatest risk associated with early use. Crash risk elevation is between 1.6 to five times that of a driver with no drugs in their system. As hon. Members will probably be aware, the relative crash risk for a driver above the current alcohol limit is in the range of six to 10, so there is a clear disparity in relation to the risk level among drivers using drugs.
	Clinical studies have tended to be inconclusive because of ethical and safety considerations, so studies have tended to use lower dosages of drug than might be taken by typical users. The issue of drug control, of course, is dealt with under other Government legislation, and I believe that that should remain the case. For road safety, however, the dangers of drug misuse extend to medication. I think that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed that out. Drugs used every day, such as in headache preparations, may also be taken contrary to pharmacological guidelines. Benzodiazepines, which are found in commonly prescribed tranquilisers, are possibly one of the most impairing drugs in drivers when used improperly. Methadone, used for the treatment of heroin addiction, is not illegal, but, if abused, it can impair. The current law, under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, deals with that.
	I fully recognise that right hon. and hon. Members do not seek to undermine the existing legislation. It is important, however, that we do not give the public a misleading impression that the proposed new offence is a universal panacea for dealing with drug-driving. Rather than the zero tolerance approach implied by the new clause, the right response to the drug-driving problem must be to try to establish legal limits to drugs, similar to those imposed for alcohollevels that have been demonstrated to be impairing, or at least beyond what could be attributed to medical treatment. I will not pretend that that will be easy; if it were, it would have been done already. World experts are not fully in agreement with each other, but we can expect some convergence of views as more research is done.
	In the meantime, the priority must be to address detection. I am advised by colleagues in the Home Office that a specification for a drug screener will be issued shortly, which will mean that manufacturers can supply devices to the police to help them identify drivers who are using drugs. That will facilitate the process of obtaining an evidentiary blood sample and reduce the costs of doing so. In due course, the police should be able to give us more information about the prevalence of drugs in the driving population and at accidents. On that basis, we will be better armed to establish an absolute offence based on crash risk, rather than having to rely as we do now on evidence of impairment.
	In the light of what I hope was a comprehensive response, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will be prepared to withdraw new clause 1. I assure him once again that as soon as the science gives us the information that we need, and as soon as robust roadside detection devices are available that can be used by the police force under all conditions, I will want legislation to be brought back to the House to change the current position. Until such a time, however, it would be foolhardy to proceed with his new clause.
	New clause 5 has not been moved, but I acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is right that the existing law on sleep apnoea is sufficiently robust if properly enforced.
	That brings me to new clause 30, and the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on drink-driving. I suspect that we could argue about that for a very long time and never agree. I remain convinced that it is right for us to enforce the current level of 80 mg. If we did that with any reasonable degree of success, we would save several hundred lives on our roads. That would be better than focusing on the 65 people involved in accidentsonly involved; not necessarily a causal factorwhose level was between 50 and 80 mg.
	Let me now say something that may be controversial, and may even get me into a bit of trouble. I believe that in some parts of the country the police have dropped the ball on drink-driving, and are not enforcing the existing 80 mg level with the vigour that I would like to see.

David Davies: The Minister might be right in saying that the police are finding it difficult to enforce the law as they would like, but, as one who spent some time on the police parliamentary scheme with him over the summer, may I suggest that that may be partly because so many are seconded to squads set up by the Government, or are filling in the plethora of forms that the Government have provided for them?

Stephen Ladyman: I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He is talking absolute nonsense. The Government do not second police officers on to anything. I suspect that if the Government interfered in the life of the constabulary in that way, the hon. Gentleman and his friends would table a great many emergency motions to enable the House to discuss it.
	The Government agree targets with police forces, which the Home Office accepts after thorough consultation with its stakeholders because they reflect the views of members of the public who want to see our streets policed safely. I believe that in some constabularies the chief constables and police authorities may well have got the balance wrong, and diverted too much of their resource from roads policing to other areas of police activity. If they have done that, it is not for me or for the Government to intervene; it is for local people and the local police authority to do so, and to make their views known.
	Any Member who feels that the drink-driving law is not being properly enforced in his or her area should raise the matter directly with the local constabulary. I have raised the issue with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and with the chief constable responsible for roads policing. He is doing his best to convince his colleagues that there is a significant gain for them from enforcing the rules properly. I have undertaken publicly that once I am convinced that there is proper enforcement at the 80 mg level, and believe that we have secured all the benefit of enforcement at the 80 mg-plus level, we will be prepared to reconsider and adopt the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on 50 mg. Until I have seen that effort start to pay dividends, however, I believe that the resources are going to the right place.

Owen Paterson: Will the Minister name the police authorities and chief constables whom he has in mind?

Stephen Ladyman: No, and it is not for me to do so. I am a Kent Member of Parliament, and if I had concerns about the constabulary of Kent I would certainly express them; but it is for other Members to make their views known, for me to raise the issues with ACPO, and for ACPO to try to deal with matters themselves.

David Kidney: In the last nine years, we have changed the law in this place so that the Home Office can publish a national policing plan containing the overarching priorities for all police forces in the country. Do my hon. Friend's discussions with Home Office Ministers include representations suggesting that the plan should make roads policing a higher priority?

Stephen Ladyman: I do raise that with my Home Office colleagues, and roads policing is part of the national policing plan. If we continue to have concerns about whether roads are being properly policed, I shall have to raise the matter with them again and ensure that it is addressed in future versions of the plan; but I hope that the argument based on the reduction in casualties, and indeed the strong link between criminality on the roads and general criminality, will convince chief constables that they need to provide proper resources.
	For all those reasons, I urge the House to resist the proposal to reduce the level further at this stage.
	The Liberal Democrats, who tabled new clause 39, raised the question of mandatory disqualification. I believe that the new clause is among a number of amendments inspired by the insurance branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I am happy to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their interest in the matter and the work that they are doing. The views and constructive ideas of stakeholders are always welcome, and I can see the logic behind the proposal, but I simply do not accept it.
	When the original provisions of clause 36 were made following the road traffic reviewthe so-called North reportit was decided that while mandatory retesting should apply to drivers who committed the most serious road traffic offences, such as dangerous driving and worse, it was less appropriate for drink-drivers, whose driving skills, it might be argued, were less in question than their judgment about drinking.
	I remind the House that the vast majority of drink-drivers are disqualified for 12 to 18 months, during which time their driving skills may not diminish as much as those of drivers who are disqualified for longer. More recently, however, it has been considered that the worst drink-drivers who were disqualified for longer periods, such as two years or more, should be subject to a retest because of the length of time for which they were off the road. Clause 36 will enable that to be done by means of secondary legislation, but it will be subject to further consultation. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not press his new clause.
	Finally, let me deal with the issue of alcohol ignition interlocks, which feature in a number of amendments proposed, again, by the Royal Bank of Scotland. If I understand correctly, their purpose is to impose a wider application of alcohol interlock programmes by extending their availability to all drink-drivers, and to require courts to impose orders unless they believe that there is good reason for not doing so.
	We currently want to target the most serious offenders, and certainly those who cannot stop themselves from reoffending. That is where we can expect both the incentive and the commitment to participate fully, and, of course, where we might expect to achieve the best accident risk reduction. There may be a case for a more widespread application, but it has yet to be made. Best practice advice based on research suggests that a period of interlock use of less than a year is not likely to provide a benefit, and for shorter periods the fixed costs of installation and training may make it less cost-effective.
	As for making the scheme mandatory, I have some difficulty with the idea of courts' imposing such cost burdens on drivers, some of whom would not have the financial means to undertake the programme. Such drivers might have to sell their cars to pay for it. The Department would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with insurance companies about drink-driving and other aspects of road safety.
	I remind Members that our proposal is modelled on the successful drink-drive rehabilitation programme introduced by the last Administration in the early 1990s and rolled out nationally by this Government in 2000. In making the decision to undertake the course at their own expense, offenders recognise the value of learning how to change their behaviour. We should be very cautious about deviating from an approach that has served us well so far. I hope that the House will reject those amendments as well.

Christopher Chope: We have had an excellent debate. The Minister's was a classic Yes, Minister response. As a former transport Minister, I congratulate his civil servants on having taken to heart his brief, which was to try to find an objection to every possible solution.
	Every Member recognises that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. It is causing the loss of a great many lives on our roads, unnecessarily, every year. But the Minister has come up with a whole lot of trivial objections. For example, he says that we need to establish the correct level for illegal drugs, but why do we need a legal limit for illegal drugs? Surely any level of illegal drugs should be illegal and the law should deal with it. What sort of message does the Government's talk on this matter send out to young people who may be tempted to get into the drugs scene?
	The Minister says that there is a large variability of effects for the same dose taken. Well, that is exactly the same argument that was used against the breathalyser law. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can drink 10 pints without it having any effect on you, whereas some colleagues might drink one pint and be paralytic. What are the Government doing in resorting to that old, failed argument?
	From the way in which the Minister spoke about the difficulties of testing, anyone would think that we did not have drug testing in prisons, schools and in sportall promoted by the Government. So why cannot we have drug testing at the roadside? That is what the new clause is about. My Front-Bench colleague was absolutely right to draw our attention to the statistics that show that the proportion of drivers detected and prosecuted for drug-driving in this country is far below that of other countries. That is not because we do not have drug-driving, but because the Government are not dealing with the problem.
	I believe in joined-up government, but what we have had from the Minister is a silo mentality, whereby drugs issues are viewed as nothing to do with his Department. I would like to see his Department deal with drug taking and drug use alongside the Home Office. One way of achieving that would be to make it an offence for anyone to be at the wheel of a car with illegal substances in their body. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) for making it clear that the Opposition will support the new clause. I hope that many Government Members will join us, too.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12
	  
	Retro-reflective markings

'In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 80 (approval marks) insert
	80A Retro-reflective markings
	The Secretary of State shall, by 31st December 2007, by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape complying with ECE 104 to international category vehicles N2 and N3 and on goods trailers under the international classification 03 and 04 newly registered in the United Kingdom..'. [Mr. Drew.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Drew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 21 Passenger-side mirrors on HGVs
	'All vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.'.
	New clause 22 HGV audible warnings
	'All HGVs with trailers, registered in the UK, shall, by 31st December 2007, be fitted with an audible warning system that shall sound if the driver exits the vehicle when the brakes are not applied.'.
	New clause 27 Daytime running safety lights for motorcycles
	'(1) All motorcycles used on a public highway shall continuously display a dipped headlight beam and a red light during daylight hours.
	(2) Any motorcycle manufactured before 1st January 1973 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
	(3) Any person riding on a motorcycle which is not displaying daytime running lights and which is not exempt under subsection (2) commits an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

David Drew: It is with a feeling of dj vu that some of us will approach the new clause, which stands in my name and that of several other hon. Members. I make no apology for bringing the matter back on Report, given that currently we have an unsatisfactory situation. We were sure that the Government had seen some sense; with the Lords accepting the amendment, it seemed that the Government would let it ride.
	There were arguments in Committee about whether this very minor change could be brought in at the earliest possible stage. I pay due regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who tabled an amendment in Committee to ensure that this measure could be introduced as early as 2007. Not only did the Government not accept it, they voted against clause stand part, meaning that we had no opportunity to introduce this very minor but important amendment.
	I will not speak for very long. I hope that the Government have rethought their position, but I want to deal with some of the canards relating to this very small change. The biggest stumbling block appears to be that if we made the change we would be outwith some marvellous EU ability to deal with the matter. However, it appears that the EU is likely to accept the placing of retro-reflective materials on the side of heavy goods vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised a point of order, as did the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), to point out, in the nicest possible way, that what the Minister was saying was not the whole truth. Italy has passed the measure into law and the EU does not appear to be chasing Italy around. Italy does not seem to be having difficulties; it is to be congratulated on getting on with this minor but important change.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. Italy did move on this matter, but there were objections to that not only from Great Britain, but from France and Germany. The European Commission is almost certainlyit has started the preliminary stagesabout to begin infraction proceedings against Italy. As I have said repeatedly, no matter how strong the merits of retro-reflective tapes, we have to conform to ECEUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations. We cannot move ahead of those regulations without facing the same measures that Italy will face.

David Drew: I am not sure that that helps, but it does put the matter into perspective. If we are to proceed at the speed of the slowest vehiclein this case, the EUwe are all doomed. This is a simple measure and it makes sense to do it now to save lives. If the argument is that we must proceed at the speed of the EU, it is a crass abdication of responsibility. This should be introduced now.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree therefore that slow moving and overloaded juggernauts should be removed from the legislative road as quickly as possible?

David Drew: If only we had that power. I will stick to the retro-reflective tape, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	I wish to address other canards. It is argued that the measure would be too costly. All the researchincluding the Government's research done by Loughborough university, for which I am grateful, because I have been pursuing the issue for more than two yearssuggests that this is not a cost issue. The addition of 100 will not break the bank for those buying new vehicles worth 100,000.
	I would like to go much further; we could do more retrospective work. Another canard is that such changes will make very little difference, but the evidence shows that although accident rates are declining, the rate of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles has increased by 8 per cent. There is also evidence that the greatest threat is at night. Many heavy goods vehicles are well lit, but not all, and the minimum we expect is that British HGVs have the tape fitted to make them clearly visible and further to decrease the number of road traffic accidents. I do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to accept that point. As Lord Berkeley said in the other place, this issue is a no-brainer. It is a straightforward minor measure, but the Government have got very steamed up about it.
	The final canard is that the pressure to adopt the measure comes from those who manufacture the tape. I have worked with lobbyists on the issue, but if it saves people's lives it is appropriate for the industry to promote it. Many companies have already installed the tape, and drivers and cyclistsas I amknow that it can be seen clearly at night. That gives cyclists especially a chance to get out of the way. Too many accidents are caused because people simply do not see the poorly lit vehicles that do not have the appropriate reflective tape.
	This is a minor road safety measure that could make a difference and I plead with the Government to accept it. Everyone seems to want it and I suspect that opposition to it comes from within the road transport lobby, although I do not know. That lobby is split on the issue, and given that people's lives are at risk, we should be prepared to make our case. Otherwise, we will be surrendering to the basest instincts and I am not prepared to do so.

Owen Paterson: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who managed to get his name down first on our amendment. We are happy to join him, because this is a ridiculous situation. We debated the issue at some length in Committee and the facts are clear. Indeed, the Minister agrees with us. We had all-party support, because everybody agrees that night-time collisions are a problem.
	In 2001, there were 9,000 collisions in which an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent. of those cases, the HGV was struck on the side. Research by the university of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late. The same study also found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in conditions of poor visibility by 95 per cent. In the USA, where retro-reflective markings are mandatory, side and rear impact collisions involving HGVs have fallen by 41 per cent. The Loughborough report, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, showed that fitting ECE 104 markings to new HGVs would cost about 100, or just 0.001 per cent. of the vehicle's cost.
	The measure is inevitable. As long ago as 2004, the Commission recommended that all new HGVs in the EU weighing over 3.5 tonnes should be fitted with ECE 104 retro-reflective tape. It is not only the Italians who have broken ranks. They went ahead and imposed this simple measure, which has a remarkable impact, and the Greeks, Spanish and French are also considering similar action. The Dutch transport safety board has also recommended the compulsory use of retro-reflective contour marking. We do not, therefore, understand why our Government are being so timid. I am astonished that the Minister said that he had been involved in action against the Italians. That is bizarre.
	The total cost of road accidents in 2001 was 17.76 billion. The markings cost only 100 per lorry, but the cost of having a lorry off the road is 212 a day.

Stephen Ladyman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should find it surprising that we seek to defend British industry from anti-competitive practices in other countries. That is the rationale for a commitment to the whole of Europe moving together on such issues. It is not an EU matter alone. The UNECE is the body that has to agree the measure on behalf of all the states in Europe, not only those in the EU. The simple reason why we argue that the change cannot be achieved before 2010 is that we believe in the rule of law and it would be illegal. I do not know how many different ways I can say that. Even if we accept the new clause tonight, it would be illegal and we would be breaking treaties to which this country is a party.

Owen Paterson: That is a bizarre way of looking at cost. To hauliers, costs arise when their trucks are not running on the roads. If trucks are not run into, they carry on running, and the haulier does not have to bear the cost of having to repair them, will not have them off the road, and will not lose business. The Minister's way of looking at the issue is completely inverted [Interruption.] Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury's and John Lewis have already started to use retro-reflective tape voluntarily, because they know that it is worth while to do so.
	It is extraordinary that this should happen in what is supposed to be a sovereign Parliament. Members of all parties agree that this very simple and cheap measure would save lives. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)it is a pity that he is not heremade a very good comment in Committee:
	I do not like breaking the law, although I am tempted to break certain European laws because they are barmy. It is a personal opinion, but I think it is barmy that we have to wait until 2011 to save lives.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 March 2006; c. 149-150 .]

Stephen Ladyman: There is a United Nations committee treaty to which we have signed up; the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe is not a European Union body, but we signed a treaty to say that there must be type approval in accordance with the UNECE agreement. That is a treaty to which our sovereign Parliament signed up.

Owen Paterson: But the Italians, the Greeks, the French and others are going ahead, because they know that the measure will save lives.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall say this one final time: they are not doing so. The Italians have gone ahead and will face infraction proceedings as a consequence. The others may have talked about it, and bodies may have recommended the measure to themjust as bodies have recommended it to mebut if they go ahead, they will face the same infraction procedures.

Owen Paterson: So it is a choice between infraction procedures and hanging around until 2011, by which time there will have been 1,540 more collisions. We are discussing a road safety Bill at a time when more than 3,000 people a year are killed on our roads, and before us is a measure that is backed by responsible Members of Parliament of every single party. The Minister is being utterly pusillanimousabsolutely feeble to a degree. We will push the new clause to a Division later, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud will join us. The situation is utter nonsense. Our very simple measure would save lives, and we feel strongly about it. We believe that given that Members of Parliament think that the new clause would save lives, they should have the right to vote on it, and it should be made law.
	Moving on to the other new clauses in this group, we have a similar case in respect of mirrors. We find it extraordinary that the Minister, as a Kent MP, did not back new clause 21. I cited in Committee the terrible example of what happened to the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who was driving in the fast lane of a motorway in Kent. Alongside was a Hungarian truck that was correctly set up according to Hungarian regulations, with mirrors on only the left side of the vehiclethat is, on the driver's side in Hungary. The truck was completely blind on the right-hand sidethe offside, where my hon. Friend's wife was drivingand the driver forced her into the central barrier. I am glad to say that she was not hurt, but we have found that there is a consistent pattern, as those accidents are always happening. It is such a simple measure to make it mandatory to install mirrors on both sides of all heavy trucks operating in the UK. The Hungarian driver was aghast and horrified by what had happened, but he was operating within the rules as they stand. Again, the Minister has been utterly feeble, which I find bizarre considering that he represents a marginal Kent seat.
	There is a political angle to the issue, because why should not just British citizens but all those who come to this countrythere were 1.5 million vehicles from abroad here last yearbe put at risk for the simple lack of a mirror on the continental blind side? The Minister appears to be lagging behind the European Commission, which only last week said that it would require large trucks to install blind-spot mirrors. EU member states have to improve infrastructure on vehicles, and the Commission would ensure that vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes installed new mirrors so that they could see not just cars but motorbike riders and cyclists. It said in a statement:
	Every year approximately 400 road users lose their lives in accidents, because lorry drivers fail to notice them when taking a right turn.
	All that the new clause would do is pre-empt the European Commission and introduce a measure with profound safety benefits in this country.
	Again, other countries have already taken action; the Dutch and Belgians have introduced measures on blind-spot mirrors. I therefore hope that the Minister, who, as I said, has been utterly pusillanimous on the issue of retro-reflective tape, will steel himself to take action on this issue. The measure would be very cheap, as it does not cost much to install mirrors on heavy goods vehicles. It will soon be mandatory to do so, but let us get on and make it mandatory now.
	Turning to new clause 22, it is the same old story. Every year, about seven people are killed in this country while hitching up a tractor to a parked articulated trailer. The trailer's air brakes remain on until it is connected to the tractor's air supply. When the tractor reverses, there is a large clunk as the fifth wheel engages with the trailer and the whole unit remains stable, because the air brakes are still locked on the trailer. All too often, however, the driver does not engage the handbrake because he believes that the whole unit is solid. After jumping down from the tractor he climbs on to the trailer to connect the Susie hoses to engage the air. As soon as the air passes into the trailer, the brakes disengage, and the whole unit moves. In some cases, sadly, the driver panics, and while trying to jump off and scramble into the cab he is run over. In other cases, the united vehicle rolls up or down the slope, crushing someone else.
	Our extraordinarily simple technical measure would, we estimate, prevent seven deaths a year. The kit would cost about 100, as we are merely suggesting that an alarm be triggered if the tractor is left with the handbrake off. In Committee, the Minister said that he could not proceed with the measure for all the reasons that have just been given, as the infrastructure of vehicles is a European competence. However, the European Commission is not composed of unmenschenits members are human beings. If he engaged with them and talked to themhe said in Committee that he would, and he has had the whole summer to do sowe could achieve a result. The measure is terribly simple and would save seven lives a year.
	Finally, new clause 27, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), requires daytime running safety lights to be installed on motorbikes. On the whole, we think that that is a good idea. Indeed, a study by the Institute of Transport Economics at Oslo in Norway discovered that it resulted in a 32 per cent. reduction in multi-party daytime accidents. The proposal therefore has merits, as information about permanent lights on motorbikes from the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria in Australia demonstrates. We therefore support the new clause. Our main aim, however, is to persuade the Minister to steel himself to take action. We have tabled three measures that would save lives, that are very cheap, and that have been introduced in other European countries. Will the Minister therefore accept our new clauses?

John Leech: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the amount of work that he has undertaken on the issue? I shall be brief, because much of what I wanted to say has already been said by him and by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
	I wish to express my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends for new clause 12, which was tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House and would make the use of ECE 104 retro-reflective markings mandatory on all UK-registered HGVs. Although there would be a minor cost to the owners of such vehicles, the new clause would have a significant impact in improving road safety and reducing casualties on our roads. The new clause would enable other motorists more easily to identify the size and shape of the vehicle, especially in poor light and at night.
	Evidence suggests that in 2001 about a third of all collisions involving HGVs were when they had been hit on the side by another vehicle. More than a third of those side collisions at night occurred because the other driver saw the vehicle too late. The same research, which was carried out by the University of Darmstadt, concluded that the number of collisions in poor visibility or at night could be reduced by up to 95 per cent. simply with the addition of retro-reflective markings.
	Where those markings were introduced as mandatory in America, it resulted in significant reductions in side impacts on HGVs. Not only has it reduced the number of accidents, it has also had a significant cost benefit in terms of economic savings because there were fewer accidents.
	The cost of introducing the markings would be only about 100 per vehicle. When that is factored into the overall cost of an HGV, it is a mere drop in the ocean. I have never bought an HGV, but I have been given information by Reflect, which estimates that the cost of the markings would be less than 0.01 per cent. of the overall cost of the vehicle. By comparison, that would be equivalent to paying only an extra 80p on the cost of my car to improve its safety.
	I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who has much experience with HGVs, is unfortunately not in the Chamber to add something to the debate. I am sure that he could have made a number of comments and I was looking forward to hearing what he had to say.
	The overall cost would be a small price to pay for saving lives. It would reduce the number of collisions by an estimated 1,185 between now and 2010, if the Loughborough university report is to be believed. Given that the number of deaths from accidents involving HGVs has risen while the overall number of deaths on the roads has dropped, it is clearly time that this practical, cost-effective measure to improve HGV safety was made mandatory.

Greg Knight: I rise to draw the House's attention to my new clause 27, which would require all motorcycles used on a public highway to display dipped headlight beams continuously and a red light during daylight hours, with an exemption for historic motorcycles. Any motorcycle failing to comply with that requirement would be guilty of an offence.
	It is not a radical innovation. Careful motorcyclists in this country have already developed the practice of using their headlights at all times. Why? Because it increases their visibility and safety, so it is to be welcomed. The practice has been given official sanction. The highway code advises all motorcyclists to use their lights during day-time hours. It even includes a cartoon with a caption pointing out that it is wrong to drive a motorcycle without lights, so there is official blessing for the contents of new clause 27 in the highway code. The new clause would merely enshrine good practice in legislation.
	Personally, I am against unnecessary legislation, so if the Minister can tell me that the current position, with the recommendation in the highway code, is an effective practice to which most motorcyclists adhere, I should probably be content and would not wish to push new clause 27 to a vote. But I have a second purpose in speaking to the new clause: I should like to tease out from the Minister his wider view, which I hope is that the provision should not be extended to cover all motor vehicles at all times on our roads. I hope that his support will extend only to motorcyclists, because somewhere deep in the heart of Brussels there is a regulation-ridden, form-filling, pen-pushing nincompoop of a Eurocrat who feels that the one-size-fits-all policy, which we see all too often in the EU, should be applied to day-time running lights and every EU member state should have compulsory day-time running lights on all motor vehicles, and further that such a provision should be retrospective and should thus apply to existing vehicles on our roads. I hope that the Minister, while indicating his support for the aims of new clause 27, will also be able to tell the House that he does not support the proposal currently being debated in Brussels to make every motor vehicle on the road use day-time running lights.
	There are a number of reasons why new clause 27 is good, but to go further would be badclutter, to start with. One benefit for motorcyclists in having their headlights on is that it makes them more visible to other road users. If every motor vehicle on the road was obliged by EU law to run with headlights or day-time running lights, we should have visual clutter and light pollution. Motorcyclists would be less visible because we would not be able to identify them from other vehicles. Such a law would remove the current safety benefits for motorcyclists.
	The one-size-fits-all view is also wrong when we consider the climate and the number of daylight hours of EU member countries. Some European countries have few daylight hours; indeed, in the depths of winter some have no daylight. What might be right for them is not right for the UK. In some EU countries it is not light until 9.30 or 10 in the morning and it is dark again by 2.30 or 3 o'clock. In this country, there are many periods of good, bright weather in winter, so to say that motorists should have their headlights on at all times is inappropriate. It is the heavy hand of the nanny state.
	If such a provision came into force, there would be a side-effect as it could affect the use of historic motor vehicles. At this point I declare an interest as the owner of several historic vehicles and as chairman of the all-party historic vehicles group. As the Minister knows, it is a technical issue; some early motor vehicles use gas lighting and the majority of historic and classic motor vehicles use a generator rather than an alternator to recharge their battery. The generator is

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: A dynamo.

Greg Knight: Indeed. And a dynamo or a generator is less effective than an alternator and an old vehicle forced to run its headlights all day would soon have a flat battery. One of the side-effects would be to take historic vehicles off our roads because they would be unable to run.
	I hope that the Minister will say that although he supports motorcyclists using headlightsas does the highway codehe does not see the need for us to go any further. Of course, new cars fitted with day-time running lights, such as the Volvo, have lights of slightly less intensity than dipped headlights, so older vehicles, manufactured before a change in the law, would experience a bigger drain on their battery.
	I do not know whether unanimity is required in any EU discussions on the issue. I fear that it is not and that the issue could be decided by a majority vote, so once again the meddling European Union could impose on this country a new law against the wishes of our elected Government.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend considered that to run headlights or sidelights on every vehicle would consume more fuel, albeit only a small amount? But in total, across the country, a considerable amount of extra fuel would be used if the regulation went through.

Greg Knight: I will take advice from the experts on that point. I am not sure that that is correct in every case. Certainly, if one runs air conditioning, it is true, but I am not sure whether a dynamo or an alternator has the same effect. If it does, my hon. Friend has made a very good point.
	I hope that when the Minister comes to speak to these new clauses he will tell the House that he will oppose, with all the powers at his disposal, the implementation of mandatory daylight running lights on all motor vehicles in the United Kingdom. I hope that if, in the discussions that he will no doubt attend, all appears to be lost at some point in the future, he will at least plead for an exemption for all those vehicles in the UK that are currently registered or taxed as historic. In earlier interventions the Minister made it clear that when the EU has spoken it is often too late to take the action that we would like to take. I hope that on this issue he can persuade the EU to show us a period of silence.

David Davies: I rise to support my colleagues in their new clauses. In answering a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), may I say that as somebody who has worked in road haulage for a number of years I am not aware of any lobbying from within the industry to prevent lorries, particularly new ones, from being fitted with reflective tape? I can understand why a haulier who owns 50 or 100 vehicles would baulk at paying what I think would be considerably more than 100 a time to have that fleet fitted with reflective tape retrospectively. But if this measure is to apply to new vehicles and if the cost is to be only 100 a time, it is a drop in the ocean for any haulage operator. Those who operate new vehicles tend to be the big boys anyway, and they are usually very keen to adopt any new safety procedures.
	The hon. Member for Stroud plaintively says, It's a no-brainer. Where is the opposition coming from? It is clear that it is coming not from the industry but from Brussels or whoever it is within the bowels of the United Nations who decides what sort of reflective tape should go round a lorry. That is a decision that should be made in a sovereign nation. If we have signed up to legislation saying that somebody else should be making that decision, I say that we should unsign it and say that this is a matter that should be devolved. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves in this country what sort of reflective illuminated tape should go round our HGVs.
	Frankly, it was even more astounding that the Minister then went on to say that he had been responsible for taking action against states that have pressed ahead with the legislation before the UN or the EU has got around to it, because it is anti-competitive. I speak as somebody who knows a bit about the hardships faced by people in the haulage industry. If the Minister is worried about anti-competitive measures, why is he not looking at the fact that vehicle fines and tachograph procedures are not properly enforced on the drivers of foreign vehicles that come here? Why is he not looking at fuel duty? Every British haulier could tell him that we are paying far more in fuel duty than anywhere else in Europe, and that we have to pay to use roads on the continent, yet when continental drivers come over here, they do not have to pay for any of that. That is why so many of the very large operators are now registering their companies in the Netherlands and elsewhereto get out of paying some of the taxes. As a result, British hauliers are going out of business.
	I particularly want to speak to new clause 21. This, too, is a bit of a no-brainer. I do not know whether the LGV test has changed significantly since I took it back in the early 1990s. At the time, it involved a minimum of two weeks' training and at least 40 minutes was spent taking the test itself. We got those licences and took that training in a flat-bed vehicle with a tractor fitted with a rear window and a rear-view mirror, so it was relatively easy. As soon as one gets out on to the roads, one is normally driving either a box-type vehicle or a curtain-sider. Even if one is driving a flat-bed, obviously for much of the time it is fully loaded. I have driven many kinds of articulated vehicles both here and abroad, and my recollection is that very few of the cabs are fitted with a rear-view mirror. Even if there is a rear window it is quite distracting for drivers to look in a rear-view mirror because, most of the time, they will be driving a fully loaded vehicle and will be unable to see anything out of it.
	It is obvious that if the driver of a 40ft, 40 tonne vehicle has only the driver-side mirror to look into when trying to move back across from the fast lane or, on a motorway that forks, to go into a left-hand lane, they are driving a death-trap. Driving on the continent, the danger is greatly magnified. So once again, we have a new clause that is a complete and utter no-brainer. In fact, it was news to me that someone could drive an articulated or goods vehicle without a mirror on the passenger side. I find that quite extraordinary. No responsible haulier would send a vehicle out like that, although I do know from experience that there are plenty of irresponsible ones around, so it would not surprise me if one or two do.
	I can add to the debate only by pointing out that a 3.5 tonne vehicle is still a dangerous one to be driving without a passenger-side mirror. Most people would think of such a vehicle as being a Ford transit, but there are larger vehicles that have a slightly lower payload but nevertheless can travel at 80 mph. I would not know that from experience of course, but many of them will be able to do that. Those vehicles will often be in the middle lane if not the fast lane of the motorway, and the idea that they could be changing lanes without a passenger mirror is absolutely frightening.
	We must bear it in mind that any sort of goods vehicle will often be loaded, and any loaded vehicle, whether it is a flat-bed or some sort of a box, will not allow a proper view out of the rear-view mirror. We should therefore not only be pushing for HGVsanything over 3.5 tonnesto have a passenger mirror as quickly as possible, but extending that to any kind of goods vehicle.
	I am totally anti-regulation, as a rule. I am completely against piling further unnecessary regulation on to the haulage industry because I have seen so many of my friends going bankrupt as a result of unnecessary regulation, but this is one bit of regulation that no responsible operator would want to avoid. It is one thing that we ought to do to increase safety on the roads and ensure that responsible hauliers are not operating at a disadvantage because the irresponsible cowboys are driving vehicles that should not be let loose on the road.

Stephen Ladyman: I do not know how many different ways I can say it: the United Kingdom is a law-abiding nation that signs treaties and then tries to live by them. We believe in the rule of law, and when we agree to follow certain rules and laws, we do not break them and we do our best to make sure that everybody else complies with them. That is the way we live our lives, because once we break that rule as a Parliamentonce we say that there are some laws that we as a nation can ignorewe are saying that everybody can ignore any law that they do not particularly like.
	We signed a treaty that stated that because there are competitive issues involved in the type approval of vehicles, we would abide by rules laid down at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Why did we choose UNECE to lay down those rules? I cannot tell the House that. I was not involved at the time that we made those agreements. I suspect that that occurred under the previous Government. The reason is that not every state in Europe is a member of the European Union, and we needed a set of type approval rules that would cover not just the European Union but Switzerland, Norway and any other country whose vehicles might be driving through Europe, so we agreed to follow UNECE regulations.
	European lawthe European Community regulations requires us to go along with UNECE regulations on type approval. Those regulations provide for retro-reflective tape to be made mandatory. In the discussions we are pressing for that to happen as soon as possible, but that is unlikely to be before January 2010. We will press harder to try and get it done faster. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will accept that assurance from me, but the date is likely to be 2010.
	The measure may involve only a small amount of money on the price of a new vehicle, but it is a point of principle that we must have the type approval. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) accuses me from the Opposition Front Bench of being pusillanimous for not agreeing to break the law, which, as I have explained, is the position he is trying to put me in. He calls that pusillanimous. I call it the reason why we have a Parliament in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman then argues that we should obey the same rule in respect of close proximity mirrors and the fitting of mirrors on the side of vehicles. He spoke to the new clause calling for the fitting of close proximity mirrors. The same rules that he says we should break when it suits us are the rules that will require those to be fitted to new vehicles in Europe from the beginning of next year. If we decide not to obey the rules, will we accept that people elsewhere in Europe can decide not to bother with close proximity mirrors and drive into our country in future? Is it only when we agree with a set of rules under the treaty that we will obey them?

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is in danger of rolling two things into one. Those of us who do not take a xenophobic attitude towards Europe, as some Opposition Members obviously do, would argue that we want to abide by the rules, but when my hon. Friend tells us that something as simple as putting reflective tape on heavy goods vehicles cannot become law until 2010, there is something seriously wrong. Our Government should go in with hobnail boots on and deal with the matter. It is not a little matter if someone dies on our roads. It is a big matter if one person dies because of the lack of reflective tape. I hope my hon. Friend will give the House an assurancethe House usually agrees with him on transport safety mattersthat he will go in with hobnail boots and do something about the implementation date.

Stephen Ladyman: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will press for as early an implementation as possible. If it can be done earlier than 2010, we will press for that, but I have a duty to give the House a realistic assessment of how long such matters usually take. Our assessment is that it will probably take until 2010. If we can get agreement to implement the measure more quickly, we will do so. There is nothing to stop the voluntary fitting of the tape by anyone who is buying a new vehicle. What we are not allowed to do is require the mandatory fitting of it by everybody who brings a new lorry into Europe in the intervening time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be pressing as hard as possible to try to get the issue resolved as early as we can.

David Davies: rose

Stephen Ladyman: I come now to some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall give him an opportunity to intervene in a moment. I shall be very rude about him and I expect he will want to intervene. When he spoke about passenger-side mirrors, he claimed an expertise which I am not convinced he has. We are not talking about passenger-side mirrors. Of course lorries must have passenger-side mirrors. We are talking about an additional close proximity mirror, which will be required by lawthe same laws and rules to which the Opposition objectto be fitted in new vehicles from January next year.
	The new clause would require us to make that mandatory now. By the time we have Royal Assent and we have done all the paperwork and got the lawyers involved, it will be quicker to wait for the new European requirement to be introduced in January. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) kept speaking about passenger mirrors. We are not dealing with passenger-side mirrors. Neither he nor the hon. Member for North Shropshire correctly referred to them as close proximity mirrors. They and other speakers implied that the problem that we face with the side-swiping of vehicles would disappear once close proximity mirrors were fitted.
	I challenge that, although I think close proximity mirrors will have a role to play in reducing the incidence of side-swiping. The hon. Member for North Shropshire gave the statistics for the number of accidents caused by side-swiping as vehicles change lane. What he did not tell the House was that 80 per cent. of vehicles involved in such accidents already had close proximity mirrors fitted. So close proximity mirrors are not the solutionor at least they are not the only solutionto this problem.
	That is why the Department for Transport has been showing real leadership across the European Union in exploring the question of what is the genuine blind spot that causes these accidents. We are about to start a trial with a Fresnel lens, which we will distribute to a number of lorry drivers coming into some of the channel ports, because we believe that such lenses allow the driver to see not the blind spot that close proximity mirrors reveal, but a blind spot that appears to exist to the side and just to the front of heavy goods vehicles. If that experiment is successful, we will have gone a long way toward preventing side-swiping.
	Close proximity mirrors will reduce some of the problem and they will be fitted from the start of the new year, but we should not kid ourselves or anybody else that they will be the solution to the problem, because, as the statistics show, 80 per cent. of side-swiping incidents are caused by vehicles that already have close proximity mirrors. I should also point out to the House that none of the four fatalities caused by this sort of accident involved a foreign-registered vehicle; they were all British vehicles.

Owen Paterson: I have not mentioned close proximity mirrors. Our new clause 21 is written in very simple language. It states:
	All vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.
	That would prevent the traumatising of innocent young Hungarian truck drivers who come here without mirrors on their passenger side, and it would also have an effect on UK drivers.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has phrased a new clause in a way that requires a mirror to display all parts of the road. What I am saying is that my officials believe that the mirrors currently available, and which it is proposed should be fitted to the vehicle fleetwhether by Europe or by anybody elseleave a blind spot to the front and the side of the vehicle, and that nobody has yet devised a solution to that problem. We are going to test Fresnel lenses to see whether they are a solution to the problem. We will distribute them free in a pilot, along with educational material, to discover whether they help people to see the particular blind spot that we think is causing the side-swiping incidents. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause, and that he will accept my reassurance that we are taking this matter extremely seriously, are pushing ahead and will attempt to solve the problem as quickly as possible.
	As was rightly pointed out, as I represent a Kent constituency, this matter is of considerable importance to me and I am not going to let it sit on the back burner. I am going to push as hard as I can, but I want a solution that works and that is supported by the evidencenot one that is just a reaction to the knee-jerk xenophobia that says that this must be something to do with foreign lorry drivers with a blind spot on the passenger side.

David Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I can assure him that he need not spare my feelings: many people in the Chamber both here and in Wales have been a lot ruder to me than he was just then. We have phrased the new clause in simple language, and perhaps the language that I used was a little simple, as well. Perhaps I reverted to a past profession, when I should have remembered that when one enters politics, one should try to use loquacious language. Nevertheless, the Minister knew exactly what we meant.
	It is important that we solve this problem. The Minister must travel to the continent quite a lot, so he must know that when we go to France, we have to change the lights on the front of our cars in order to fit in with French regulations. Therefore, for him to say that we cannot do something different in Britain, either with cars or heavy goods vehicles, from what is being done on the continent surely cannot be correct, because different countries on the continent already apply different rules and expect driverswhether of heavy goods vehicles or notto obey them.

Stephen Ladyman: French drivers and other continental drivers when they come to this country have to fit lenses to their cars so that the lights dip on the other side. The rule is the same for all of us. When we drive on the right the lights have to dip in one direction and when we drive on the left they dip in the opposite direction, so that is not a good analogy. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was being particularly rude to him. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), said that I need to try harder.

Rob Marris: May I suggest that when my hon. Friend is considering mirrors with blind spots he should do what we did when I drove buses in the '70s in Canada. On the passenger side we had an arm sticking out on the front on the passenger side, somewhat like a proboscis, with a convex mirror on it. A convex mirror, properly positioned, will get rid of almost every blind spot, and the solution has been around for 30 or more years.

Stephen Ladyman: I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestion is considered, but I hope that he will accept the general principle from me that resolving the issue of side-swiping is not the simple matter that some people, and some newspapers in particular, have portrayed it to be. However, we are determined to get to the bottom of it.
	I come now to audible warning devices. The hon. Member for North Shropshire said that I had made certain promises in Committee, and I have honoured those promises. My officials raised the matter at the meeting in September of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on brakes and running gear. We asked for information from international sources on the incidence of runaway trucks and trailers and the level of the problem that he has identified, and member states represented there have shown considerable interest in the fact that we have raised this issue. We are waiting for responses from them and we intend to pursue the matter through the UNECE and hopefully therefore obtain buy-in from all continental member states in order to resolve the issue in due course. On that basis, I hope that he will not push the new clause to a vote.
	With regard to daytime running lights there is the new clause with its literal meaning proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and then there is his real concern, which I share, that changes in the EU might lead to mandatory fitting of daytime running lights and even their mandatory use on all vehicles on all the roads of Europe. I have strongly opposed that in all forums that I have been represented at. In particular, I made strong representations at the Transport Council that that is not in the interests of road safetyfor exactly the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. In this country, because motorcycles use day-time running lights, they have greater visibility than they would do if everyone used such lights.
	Given that one of the most serious problems that we face in this country is to bring down sharply the stubborn rate of motorcyclist fatalities, we cannot afford to compromise an important safety concern for motorcyclists. Therefore, I have made strong representations at all the meetings at which I have been represented and I intend to do so again at the ministerial road safety conference in Verona in two or three weeks' time. I am making a presentation about motorcycle safety in general and what we need to do to try to reduce motorcycle casualties, but one of my key points will be the need to maintain the existing state control on the issue, because opinion on whether to compel the use of day-time running lights will vary in different states. In this country, I firmly believe that we should not do so.
	However, I am increasingly pessimistic. The tide is running against me. A number of powerful states believe that it is a good idea. I believe that they think that it is a panacea and an easy solution to which their public will not object and which will help to reduce their casualty statistics. I do not think that it will reduce their casualty statistics, but it will affect our casualty statistics. I will continue to fight the good fight, but I cannot promise that I will win.

Greg Knight: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply and think that all hon. Members back his position. If it appears that that change is about to be made, will he bear in mind the special case of historic vehicles, in which case perhaps he would make a plea for such vehicles to be exempted?

Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that heritage vehicles often require special treatment, and I shall do my best to make that case, if the issue arises.
	I have covered all the amendments, but I shall briefly return to retro-reflective tape. I hope that the assurance that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud encourages him to withdraw new clause 12, because I will do my best to push the issue as urgently as I can.

John McDonnell: Unilateral action by this country linked to action by other countries that have expressed an interest is one way to bring the matter to a head. It would force the other treaty signatories to address the issue as a matter of urgency rather than waiting for another four years.

Stephen Ladyman: The problem with unilateral action is that it would encourage infraction proceedings against us and that it would weaken our argument on other matters such as close proximity mirrors, blind-spot mirrors and, perhaps one day, Fresnel lenses. My hon. Friend is a firm supporter of the United Nations and understands the need to obey its rules.

John McDonnell: rose

Stephen Ladyman: I have encouraged my hon. Friend down an avenue that I did not want to encourage him down. We should use the existing structures and work as hard as we can to try to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, but we should not break the laws and treaties to which we have signed up.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is at least partially reassured. He should know that I am good-hearted in these matters, and I hope that he will withdraw new clause 12.

David Drew: I did not know that hon. Members had come to this House to start a world revolution by taking on both the EU and the UN, but if that is what we must do to introduce a small measure of sanity into the issue of road safety, then so be it. In two days' time, I will attend an event to which I have been invited by a number of people who ride disability scooters or use wheelchairs. The event celebrates the fact that they are fitting retro-reflective tape to their vehicles in order to be seen more clearly at night. If retro-reflective tape is good enough for people who travel rather slowly, but who want to be seen more clearly, it behoves us to do something about HGVs.
	It is with some regret that I say that I will push new clause 12 to a vote. I do not understand the Minister's argument, because we must start somewhere and should adopt this simple measure. It is important that hon. Members show that we support what, as the Minister knows, is a long-standing and popular all-party movement. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before it is considered in Europe.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [8 March].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that a separate Division is sought on new clause 37. As the House is aware, there is a typographical error in the text of the new clause, in that some words are repeated. In lines 5 and 6, the words six months or to a fine not exceeding should be omitted. The intention is clear, and I am prepared to allow the clause to be moved in its corrected form.

New Clause 37
	  
	Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings

'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (drivers to comply with traffic signs) consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'. [Mr. Carmichael.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Ordered,
	That clause 53 be transferred to the end of line 23 on page 56. [Mr. Heppell.]
	 Ordered,
	That clause 50 be transferred to the end of line 23 on page 56. [Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 57
	  
	commencement

Amendments made: No. 17, page 61, line 4 , after 'Sections' insert
	'(Delegation of power to make level crossing orders),'.
	No. 18, page 61, line 6 , after 'but' insert
	'(a) section (Delegation of power to make level crossing orders)(2) does not affect anything done or omitted to be done before that day, and
	(b) '. [ Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 58
	  
	extent

Amendment made: No. 19, page 61, line 12, leave out 'Sections 10(3) and 15 and Schedule 4' and insert
	'Section 10(3) and Schedule 4, section 15 and section (Delegation of power to make level crossing orders)(2)'. [ Mr. Heppell.]

Schedule 7
	  
	repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 1, page 133, line 31, at end insert
	 '(15A) Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles
	
		
			  Short title and chapter  Extent of repeal 
			 Local Government  (Miscellaneous  Provisions) Act 1976  (c. 57) Section 75(1)(b). 
			 Private Hire Vehicles  (London) Act 1998 (c. 34) In section 1(1)(a), in the definition  of private hire vehicle, the words  to the public.'. 
		
	
	No. 2, page 134 , leave out lines 8 to 11. [Mr. Heppell.]
	Title
	No. 3, line 2, leave out 'trunk road picnic areas and private hire vehicles' and insert
	'hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and trunk road picnic areas'. [Mr. Heppell.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It has been a long journey. When the Bill first entered Parliament in 2004, statistics showed 3,508 deaths on the road every year. The figure has dropped by 8.5 per cent., or 300 lives a year, since then.

Jim Devine: My hon. Friend will know of Isabel Brydie, a formidable lady in my constituency. She is the Scottish driver of SCID, the Scottish campaign against irresponsible drivers. She spoke to me over the weekend, and asked me to pass on her congratulations, and those of her members and supporters. They welcome this Government initiative. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating not only Isabel but the campaign.

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Isabel and SCID. I also congratulate all the road safety groups and lobby organisations that have taken such an interest in the Bill and given us their advice. I have not always accepted it or agreed with it, but it has always been constructive and useful to us all in our debates.
	Since 2004, the total number of deaths and serious injuries has fallen by 13.5 per cent., and by 33 per cent. compared with the 1994-98 baseline. That is well on the way to our target of a 40 per cent. reduction by 2010. The number of children killed or seriously injured has fallen by 49 per cent. compared with the baseline. I am proud to say that this country has one of the safest road networks in the world, at or near the very top of any European league of road safety. We are making progress, with the number of road casualties falling every year. However, if we want to ensure that the number continues to fall, we cannot be complacent. Nine people a day are still dying on our roads.

David Taylor: We have indeed seen notable successes on British roads in recent years, but will my hon. Friend comment on an article in the  British Medical Journal that fails to find much of a correlation between the number of serious injuries caused by road accidents as recorded in hospital admission statistics and as recorded by the police? There seems to be a discrepancy that needs to be bridged.

Stephen Ladyman: I can comment on that. The fact is that there has always been a known under-reporting of accidents. There is, of course, no under-reporting of fatalities. Everyone agrees that fatalities are reported to the police as well as appearing in hospital statistics. The figures that I have just given include the fatality figures, and they are still falling. There has always been under-reporting of other accidents, but as it has always been there, there is no reason to believe that it is becoming more serious now than it ever was. Whether we take the police or the hospital figures, the trends are falling. However, the Department has acknowledged that further work is needed, and we are continuing to conduct research on the matter. Indeed, I would argue that we identified it as an issue needing research even before the appearance of the article in the  British Medical Journal.
	As I was saying, if we want to continue to drive down the number of accidents and fatalities, we cannot be complacent. We need further measures to raise the standard of driving and to make irresponsible driving a thing of the past, and that is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that dual carriageways are much safer than ordinary single carriageways, but that they need proper crash barriers? Is he aware that some stretches of dual carriageway do not have such crash barriers? Is he concerned about that and will he give any priority to the matter?

Stephen Ladyman: I am always anxious to see measures put in place that are based on evidence. Not all roads need crash barriers. A risk assessment has to be performed and if we use resources unnecessarily in one place, they cannot be used more effectively in another place. As a matter of principle, I would expect most dual carriageways to have crash barriers and, ultimately, they will all have them. On the trunk road system, however, where we have decided that crash barriers are unnecessary, the decision has to be based on a risk assessment of a particular stretch of road. I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with a definitive statement about any specific road, but I can tell him that a mile of motorway in this country now costs an average of about 25 million, while four-lane dual carriageways cost about 16 million a mile. No one can accuse us of under-engineering the new road infrastructure. It is partly that engineering that has led to the decrease in the number of accidents and it helps to explain the fact that we have among the safest roads in the world. That is not to say that they cannot be made more safe or that we should not attempt to do more.
	The Bill is designed to address irresponsible driving and to deal with non-UK residents who break the law. By seeking deposits from the drivers of heavy goods vehicles, we will deal with foreign drivers who break the law in the belief that they can get away without penalty. It even allows us to impound their vehicles if they do not have the cash to pay the deposit. It allows us better to enforce insurance legislation by moving towards a system of continuous insurance. The bane of honest drivers' lives are people who are driving around this country without paying their insurance, costing us all an extra 30 a year on our premiums. I hope that that will be dealt with by the continuous insurance provisions.
	The Bill also deals with many other important issues, such as speeding, recklessness and people who cause death by careless drivinga major new provision. Currently, someone may face a long custodial sentence if found guilty of dangerous driving, but because it is a difficult case to prove, he may be found guilty only of careless driving. He may then be given what appears to many victims and their families as only a slap on the wrist. The Bill fills that gap very well.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister accept the thanks of many of my constituents for introducing this new law? A young girl, Alexine Melnik, was killed by a careless driver, who received a wholly inappropriate penalty. Labour and independents as well as Conservatives in Wellingborough have long campaigned for a change in the law. The father, Mr. Peter Melnik, is delighted to see this law passed.

Stephen Ladyman: I am delighted that he and other Wellingborough constituents are happy. I can understand their pain. A constituent of mine was killed by someone driving dangerously at a set of traffic lights, but because of the vagaries of the current law the driver was fined just 100 for causing a young man's death and leaving a widow. That is unacceptable; the new legislation fills the gap in the law and fulfils our manifesto commitment at the last election. I am proud that we have been able to agree on the new measure. I very much hope that the House of Lords will accept the view of the Commons and will not attempt to change this provision.
	I do not want to go through a long list of thanks to various people, because I know that hon. Members will want to contribute to our Third Reading debate. I would, however, like to pay tribute to both Front-Bench spokesmen for the constructive way in which they have participated. We have not agreed on everything, but we have had good fun debating the matter. Their arguments have been constructive, if occasionally wrong-headed. We have had a good debate and I commend all members of both Front Benches for that.
	I wish to mention some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), whose private Member's Bill introduced the careless driving provisions that we have made part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has been a long-term campaigner on road safety and is a former chairman of PACTS. He has been constructive throughout the debate. He and I have different opinions on how we enforce the measures on the level of alcohol in the bloodstream, but there are very few things on which we disagree.
	A Member who cannot be here tonighthe has apologisedhas been with this Bill since 2004 but finally had to give in and go off with a Select Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Had he been here, he would have been rebelling with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on retro-reflective tape.
	Other hon. Members have contributed to this enjoyable debate and I would particularly like to mention the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), a doughty defender of the owners of heritage Bentleys. I am sorry that he cannot be here for the final stage of the Bill.
	I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has looked after me throughout the Bill. Most of all, I wish to thank my officials for the wonderful work they have done. We cannot acknowledge anything that happens outside this Chamber, but were they listening. I hope that they would feel proud of their contribution to making our roads safer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Owen Paterson: It has been a long ride; I feel positively arriviste, as my participation goes back only to the new year. However, the Bill began in 2004 and the Minister quite rightly said that its main objective is to reduce the number of those killed on our roads. In 2005, 3,201 people were killed on our roads; there were 271,017 casualties, of whom 141 were children who were killed. We have no intention of opposing the Bill, because there are certain measures that we think will help to reduce that figure. The Minister said it had come down, but it is still an unacceptable figure and we have a nasty feeling that it may have plateaued.
	We are pleased about some elements of the Bill, such as road safety grants.

Mark Harper: In my constituency last year, the rate of fatalities was, sadly, four times the national average. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in recognising that road safety grants provide an opportunity for groups such as Time and Place in my constituency to get extra funding to continue the good work that they have done, particularly with younger drivers, to help bring down the rate of fatalities.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not aware of the details of the organisation, but it is probably the sort of educational project of which we approve.
	We are in favour of the financial penalty deposits and the immobilisation and removal of vehicles. That would certainly help our haulage industry, which is up against fearsome competition following the huge increase in the number of foreign trucks on our roadsup from 671,000 a year in 1997 to 1,595,000 in 2004. We hope that those sensible measures will work. We approve of medical inquiries for high-risk offenders following disqualification and of some of the measures to try to prevent deaths caused by uninsured drivers, although we feel they do not go far enough. Similarly, we approve of the measures to keep vehicles that do not meet insurance requirements, although we would want to go further. We like the tightening up on registration plates and the regulation of vehicles modified to run on fuels stored under pressure.
	Overall, however, we felt that the Bill was a missed opportunity. As the Minister acknowledged, we did not take a partisan approach. We tried to table constructive amendments and new clauses that would help to save lives, but we are ultimately disappointed with the Bill. We will not oppose its Third Reading tonight, but it could have been so much better.
	Some of the measures were petty, such as the ban on detection devices which effectively give drivers an extra pair of eyes and ears. We were also disappointed by the Government's continuing pigheadedness and pusillanimity about taking on the European Commission on safety issues on which other countries have already gone ahead. Those issues included retro-reflective tape, mirrors and alarms.
	We were disappointed on the issue of the inclusion of a rudimentary first aid element in driving tests. There is good evidence that if one can clear the airwaves of someone in an accident within four minutes they will live, but if not, they will die. We thought that such a provision would help to save lives, but we were turned down.
	The nearest we got to changing the Government's mind was on motorbikes in bus lanes. We all but got the Minister to accept that there should be a presumption that motorbikes should be allowed in all bus lanes unless specifically excluded, perhaps outside schools, hospitals or fire stations, but the Minister did not even give in on that.
	We could not persuade the Government on other issues, including some of regulation. We proposed a regime for licensing limousines, the number of which has increased spectacularly from 3,000 in 2003 to more than 11,000 now. Those large vehicles are not properly regulated, but many people travel in them and we fear that there may be a horrible accident. We also proposed regulation of pedicabs. We tabled amendments, having consulted the businesses involved, but time and again we were rebuffed.
	The Bill failed to address two big areas. We consistently tabled amendments that would have toughened up

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman forgets that we allowed him to set a new precedent by winning on an amendment in Committee.

Owen Paterson: We won the amendment and then the Minister voted down the clause, so it was a pyrrhic victory.
	The first big issue is the problem of rogue drivers. Some 750,000 cars are not properly registered on the database. Some 2 million drivers drive without tax or insurance, and some 500,000 may be unlicensed. The Department for Transport told us in September that as many as three in 10 vehicles may operate outside the laws on registration, vehicle testing and insurance. Research shows that drivers of such vehicles are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink- driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.
	Our amendments would have borne down on hit-and- run drivers, for whom we wished to introduce a maximum penalty of 14 years so that there was no incentive to leave the scene of a serious accident if one had had a drink. We were disappointed that the Government did not accept the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), which would have caught those who constantly flout the law by giving a false address. We fear that instead of targeting the small number who cause disproportionate damage and mayhem, we risk alienating the 34 million drivers who just want to get from A to B safely and in comfort.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning new clause 17, which we did not reach tonight. The Minister mentioned the fulfilment of manifesto commitments, but I wonder whether he remembers that the previous Secretary of State said:
	If people are using a false address or fiddling the system and the police cannot get to them, we need to sort that out, and we will do so.[ Official Report, 8 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 834.]
	We are still waiting to find out how that pledge will be fulfilled.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend has spoken with real passion on the subject, and he is absolutely right. It was disappointing that we did not manage to discuss the matter on Report or Third Reading. I urge the Minister to find out whether something could be done in the Lords, when the Bill goes back there, because there is a serious problem.

Stephen Ladyman: I remind hon. Members that the reason why we did not pursue the matter is that the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers assured us that the police do not believe that any new powers are necessary. He is convinced that the police can enforce in this matter without any change in the law.

Owen Paterson: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire would confirm that Bedfordshire police feel strongly about the issue. I suggest that the Minister invite my hon. Friend for a serious chat about the problem, to find out whether it could be resolved.
	Looking at the clock, I see that I must make progress. I fear that we have not concentrated enough on rogue drivers. The danger, as I have said, is that we risk alienating the huge number of law-abiding drivers who want to get from A to B. There were 200,000 speeding fines 10 years ago, but that has rocketed to 2 million today. There are 1 million drivers on six or more penalty points, but the number of traffic policemen has fallen from 9,201 in 1997 to 7,103 in 2005. We are worried that there is too much dependence on mechanical, fixed forms of enforcement, and not enough on human beingspolicemenwho can take account of varying conditions. We are concerned about that serious failing in the Government's strategy.
	We are concerned about young drivers. Drivers under the age of 29 cause a third of such accidents, and drivers between 17 and 20 are six times more likely to be involved in a collision causing injury than a driver over 40. We would like more emphasis on education, and on the need to show drivers that passing their test and no longer needing a provisional licence is only the beginning. It should be the start of a lifelong process of engaging with people who know more about driving, so that they can secure more skills and build them up. A massive opportunity has been missed in the Bill: I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to take that on board, because young people cannot end the learning process at 17 or 18, as soon as they have passed their test. There should be a progression throughout their lives, and all of us should be involved.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to education, but would he include in the categories of drivers to be sent back to the classroom the drivers of Chelsea tractorsthe 4x4 vehicles that are the environmental polluters? In the  British Medical Journal, to which I referred a moment ago, they have been shown to be much more likely not to be wearing seatbelts, and much more likely to be using mobile phones in a dangerous manner. Does not that category of driver require more attention?

Owen Paterson: That may be one category, but a wide range of people cease to concentrate on their driving skills. There should be a carrot among the measures; my last point is that the Bill is all stick. The Government's strategy is dependent on stick, but it should concentrate on the rogue drivers, and there should be a carrot for the vast majority of drivers who, as I said, want to get from A to B in safety. We do not have that incentive system, which might possibly work for the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
	Other hon. Members wish to speak, but I should briefly like to thank my team. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is sadly not in his seat, was a fund of information and knowledge, both as a former Minister and as an owner of 15 cars. I thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who kept us in line on procedure and chipped in with some helpful contributions in debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has been in the House for only a year, and who led with me on the Front Bench in a most competent and professional manner. That is a sure sign that he is going places, as, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott)he is not presentwho made some sterling contributions.
	We should congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). It is remarkable what happens when a west midlands MP goes north to a little birthday party, but we give the new Under-Secretary our congratulations.. He emerged today on the Front Bench, but when we last saw him in Committee, he was a Back-Bench Member. It would be wrong of me not to mention the Committee Clerk, Dr. John Benger, who was a fund of advice to us and extremely helpful. I should be most grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would pass our thanks on to him. With that, I wish the Bill well on its passage through the Lords.

Rob Marris: I congratulate the team and the Minister on the Bill. Among other jobs, I spent several years as a professional driver of cars, trucks and buses before I entered this place, so I know how hard it is to legislate fairly in that area.
	I seek assurance from the Minister on two issues. As he knows, I tabled two amendments that we were unable to discuss today. The first was to make the penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone obligatory disqualification, as it is for drink-driving. Research shows that using a hand-held mobile phone is as distracting for a driver as being at the blood alcohol limit for driving. Furthermore, the individual driving a car with a mobile phone in their hand will have impaired physical ability to control the vehicle. The Bill toughens up the provisions by making disqualification and points on the person's licence a possibility, but I urge the Minister for an assurance that the Government will keep the matter under review, because the penalty is not high enough.
	My second amendment related to the fitting of vehicle data recording devicesoften called black boxes. Manufacturers are already doing that, but we do not have a regime for using the information from those devices, which are a major safety aid. In my area, the West Midlands police are retro-fitting black boxes in all their vehicles. They believe that the boxes will pay for themselves. In one case, information from the black box fitted in a police vehicle was used to exonerate a police officer accused of driving carelessly and injuring a pedestrian. The data from the electronic box showed that that was not the case. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government will continue to press that issue in the European Union so that we can have a regime across the EU whereby all new cars are fitted with vehicle data recording devices, which are a major aid to safety.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) about all those who have contributed in so many ways to the passage of the Bill. As the Minister indicated, the proceedings in Committee were, by and large, constructive and good humoured. As someone who came to my present job after being part of the Home Affairs team, I found that a pleasant change.
	I place on record my appreciation of the efforts of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), and my predecessor in this job, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who led for us on Second Reading, which was some time ago. I echo the congratulations of the hon. Member for North Shropshire to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), on his well deserved appointment to the ministerial team. The hon. Gentleman has been uncharacteristically mute this evening, but I know from the experience of many years locked with him in small studios at 4 Millbank, broadcasting to a tiny number of people in Scotland, that he is a doughty defender of Government interests. I have no doubt that when he is released from his silence his contributions will be characteristically well informed and of assistance to the House.
	At times, I wondered whether we would ever reach Third Reading. It seems so long since we finished even the Committee stage. As has been reflected in other contributions, much in the Bill is good. However, so much more could be better. I feel sincere regret that on the big issuesthe real opportunities in the Billthere has been a certain timidity at the heart of the proposals and measures that the Government have introduced.
	A reduction in drink-driving limits would have been a real opportunity for the House to make a significant difference in the number of lives lost and injuries caused, and to reinforce the message about the social unacceptability of drinking and driving. Likewise, there could have been an opportunity to reduce default speed limits in built-up areas, which we see already in many different communities throughout the countryNewcastle, Aberdeen and other places are making real progress in that regard. What a chance there was to offer those opportunities to every community, but unfortunately, owing to timidity and lack of conviction, the opportunity was missed.
	Then of course there is that issue of massive geopolitical significancethe fitting of retro-reflective markings to heavy goods vehicleswhich ultimately, it seems, will have to be resolved by the United Nations Security Council. It beggars belief that so many excuses can be produced for not doing something that is so sensible. It really was like finding oneself in the middle of a Yes, Minister sketch listening to the Minister tonight trying to defend the Government's position.
	Of perhaps less central importance but significant none the less is the question of pedicab regulation. I am concerned that we have missed an opportunity for proper, effective and responsible regulation of the pedicab industry. That is of particular importance to the capital, and for pedicabs to be squeezed off the streets by Westminster city council and taxi operators is neither fair nor sensible. I do not know how we will now resolve that issue. I fear that it will ultimately be dealt with by the courts, and it was something that we could have dealt with in this Bill.
	I fear that we have not yet seen the last of the Bill. There are still a number of issues outstanding with the other place. I refer of course to the provisions relating to level crossings and to bridge strikes. We finish with the Bill tonight, allowing the Minister and his colleagues time for reflection. I hope that he will use it well and that, on mature consideration, he will see that there is worth in what the other place has done. I hope that he will not continue to resist Members in that place.
	Those points aside, we wish the Bill well. We think that it will make a significant contribution to the safety of our streets and roads, and for that we are very grateful.

David Drew: I shall speak for only a minute. We remain disappointed about the issue of retro-reflective tape, but I am sure that we will live to fight another day. Overall, this is a very good Bill, and I hope that it will become law as a matter of urgency, because many of these measures are required.
	I add one thought, which is that we are not talking just about car users. We should also be talking about cyclists and pedestrians. Sometimes we spend an awful lot of time talking about one aspect of casualties on our roadsthose who drive cars or who are in cars. Of course, cars have collisions with bikes and people. I hope that in due course we will also see further regulation to protect those who are not in cars or heavy goods vehicles, because they matter tooperhaps more.

David Burrowes: It has been a long road to get to this point in improving road safety. Certainly I can commend much in the Bill, and my constituents will do likewise. It has been a particularly long road for those in my constituency who have been campaigning on a wide range of road safety issues, not least the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost Livia when, in 1997, she was the victim of a tragic crash caused by a dangerous driver who received a lenient sentence. They have been campaigning since then, not only on the need to increase penalties for dangerous driving but on a wide range of issues of education and other aspects of safety. They will no doubt commend much of the Bill.
	The family helped to set up the Livia award. Its panel met last month with my predecessor and others to commend those police officers who have been most meritorious in their investigation of road crash incidents and who have shown outstanding service to road crash victims. During that meeting one example exposed a gap that the Minister is too ambitious in saying has been plugged. Last year, a driver high on drugs and drink sped away from a police patrol car, overtook a car on a pedestrian crossing by travelling on the wrong side of the road and struck a married couple on the crossing. The husband died and the wife survived but in a brain-damaged condition, and she now requires 24-hour nursing care. The eight-year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was relatively appropriate, but there was no sentence at all for the injuries to the wife. I suggest that no sentence is provided by the Bill.
	Another example is that of Rachel Jones, aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously by Carl Smith at 98 mph. We all have concerns about dangerous drivers speeding and driving unlicensed and drunk. Rachel was left severely brain damaged and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith's two-year jail sentence as a joke. She said:
	He 'killed' the Rachel we had for 13 years and yet he can get away with doing just two years. Rachel's future as a bright and active young teenager was cruelly taken from her by a man who did not even have a licence to drive a car.
	The driver received a two-year sentence. The victim and her family have effectively lost a life. Although she is living, she is brain damaged.
	The concern that I and others have, which we should like to have debated further on my new clause 26, is the gap between those convicted of dangerous driving and those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The gap in sentencing is too large, considering the serious injuries that often result from such incidents. In response to a consultation paper in February, the Government said they would take account of non-fatal injuries by way of a sentence for bad driving. They intended to increase the penalty for dangerous driving from two years to five years. They should reflect whether we need further legislation or an increased penalty for dangerous driving to plug the gap that still exists for those who have suffered serious injuries but not death.
	Although the penalties for dangerous driving have increased, those who are almost at the point of death, who are seriously injured to the point of brain damage, do not receive the justice that they deserve. One cannot see the qualitative difference between the husband and wife who were both injured. One died and the other was left brain damaged. What is the qualitative difference between them as victims? That gap needs to be filled. It is not adequate for the Government to say that they will deal with the matter by introducing an aggravating factor for causing death by dangerous driving or for dangerous driving. We need a specific offence or, at the very least, increased penalties for dangerous driving.
	Northern Ireland has an offence of causing death or grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, but we do not. Why is that good for Northern Ireland but not for the rest of the United Kingdom? The Bill raises questions that victims in my constituency and elsewhere would ask. How can Parliament justify a penalty for causing death by dangerous driving but not for causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving? How can the Government and Parliament justify a penalty for causing death by dangerous driving but not for brain death by dangerous driving?

David Kidney: I am disappointed at not having secured debates on the amendments in my name on seat belt wearing and court presentation officers, but despite those minor disappointments, this is a good Bill. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister and I cannot see eye to eye about the legal limit for drinking and driving, but let there be no doubt that my opinion of him is that he is a very good Minister indeed for road safety in the United Kingdom. No one could doubt his personal commitment to high standards of road safety and driving down still further the casualties that occur day in, day out on our roads.
	My hon. Friend was able to publish some good news recently, with the 2005 statistics for casualties on our roads, with reductions in deaths, serious injuries and total injuries. That is a good picture which he can feel some pride in. However, there was one worrying blip in those statisticsthe number of cyclists killed in the last 12 months of the period covered by the statistics. I am sure my hon. Friend and his excellent team will want to evaluate what has gone wrong over the past 12 months and what we can do through further measures of education, enforcement of the existing laws and engineering measures to bring down the number of deaths of some of the most vulnerable road users.
	Generally, the trend has been downward over a number of years. My hon. Friend can say that the Government are well on target to meet their casualty reductions for 2010. Some measures in the Bill will help towards those aims. In addition to the list that my hon. Friend provided, I draw attention to the promotion of a greater use of rehabilitation and driver improvement courses. They will prove to be significant over time.
	Quite properly, the House is taking seriously the matter of death on our roads. There are in the Bill a number of measures to do with death, such as causing death by careless driving and causing death when driving illegally. Equally significant will be the alternative verdict permitted in a manslaughter case, which I hope will encourage prosecutors to be a little braver in charging people with manslaughter in appropriate casesthe most serious ones.
	So all in all, this is a good Bill, which I hope will continue to promote the Government's ambition, and the House's wish, that the number of casualties on our roads will continue to decrease. I wish it well in the other place.

Andrew Selous: Like every Member who has spoken today, I welcome the Bill and wish it good passage on its way to the statute book, although we will have to see what the Lords do to it.
	However, I have a huge disappointment that the Minister will be well aware of. For more than 18 months, I and Bedfordshire policeand, indeed, many other police forces throughout the countryhave been trying to convince the Government that there is a very real problem with drivers who register their vehicles to addresses where the police cannot contact them. In response to my intervention on a Front-Bench colleague a few moments ago, the Minister said that the Association of Chief Police Officers told him that that was not a problem. Merely asserting that to be the case does not make it so. Officers from Thames Valley police and from the forces of Suffolk, Greater Manchester, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Humberside, Derbyshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, Norfolk and Kent, to name but a fewthose who actually have to do the jobhave told Bedfordshire police that there is a very real problem. They have tried to feed that message up through ACPO. Perhaps there is a blockage in ACPO and its senior people are not listening to the officers on the ground who have to enforce the law, but there is a very real problem here.
	I do not know why the Government have not moved on this matter; they have had plenty of warning. There have been two meetings at the Home Office and two at the Department for Transport, and we have had 18 months to look into this issue. In my constituency, there are horrendous examples of people driving unbelievably dangerouslyspeeding past cameras and jumping red lights time and againwhom the police can do nothing about. Bedfordshire police recently gave me a list of five fatalities, including that of an 18-month-old child, all of which could have been prevented if the Government had taken this issue seriously.
	The Government say that the current law works properly. They did not like the amendments that I tried to put before themwe would have had before us a new clause 17 tonightbut at no time have they come forward with their own proposals, or any others, to deal with this matter.

Stephen Ladyman: I did not say that the current system is acceptable. What I said was that ACPO has given me a categorical assurance that it believes that this matter can be dealt with through policing techniques. Chief constable Med Hughes, who is the ACPO officer responsible for road policing, has told me that in his viewhe believes that this is also the view of ACPOthis issue can be dealt with by different forms of policing. That is where he wants to put his efforts to start with, before we consider any further changes to legislation.

Andrew Selous: With the greatest of respect to the Minister and to the ACPO head of road policing, everything that I have been told by the officers on the ground who actually have to enforce the current law suggests that it does not work and that they simply have no options. The result is thousands of offences for which the fines are not collected, and the offences are repeated again and again; indeed, a whole morass of crime underpins this situation. Why would someone commit a crime in a vehicle other than one whose use means that they cannot be contacted? So I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer.

Kelvin Hopkins: I just want to say a few words in strong support of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is my next-door neighbour, politically speaking. He is right to take a stronger line with errant drivers of the kind that he mentioned. I have always felt very strongly that we are too soft on this minority of drivers, who behave very badly and give a bad name to the millions of people who drive perfectly well and never cause an accident or an injury.
	I very much hope that the other place will bring back amendments on reducing the alcohol level for drink-driving. In the pastunusually, I supposeI have supported the Liberal Democrats on this issue in a previous Bill. We should fall into line with other European countries and take a much more serious view of the effects of alcohol on driving. We have all no doubt had a glass of wine or beer and driven afterwards, and we all know that it does make a difference to the way that we drive, however slight. The proposed half-limits that the Europeans have will make a difference, compared with those that we currently have. The change will be incremental, but there is no question but that lives will be saved. It might be 50 or 30 lives, but they will still be lives, so it is important that we take this step. It will also help to educate us all about the necessity of being responsible when we drive. Such strict laws reinforce
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [8 March].
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Vehicle type Approval: Emissions Limits

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5163/06 and Addendum 1, Draft Regulation on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and on access to vehicle repair information, amending directive 72/306/EEC and Directive ../../EC; endorses the Government's support for a package of measures to reduce vehicle emissions substantially, leading to improvements in health and the environment, whilst allowing appropriate flexibility for industry in the short-term; and further notes that the Government will keep under review the costs and impacts of the proposal, so that it can continue to seek the right balance between environmental and other benefits and burdens on industry. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Post Office Closures

Stephen O'Brien: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the users of Cuddington post office in my constituency near Northwich. It is a great centre of their community where people can be confident that they will meet members of their community. The sub-postmaster needs to be congratulated and saluted for having very bravely withstood an armed attack on his post office just the other day, while this petition was being collected.
	The petitioners declare that they
	believe that the post office network provides a vital service to local communities in both urban and rural areas which are threatened by the Government's withdrawal of services from local post offices.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its announcement that it will end support for the Post Office Card Account in 2010 thereby threatening the viability of thousands of post offices and to immediately halt its activities designed to kill the account off in advance of that date.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

SOUTHEND (REGENERATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Liz Blackman.]

David Amess: Regeneration was never an issue in the years that I represented Basildon because of the development corporation and the new town commission, which were entirely responsible for the vibrant economy that we all experienced then. What a contrast life is in Southend, where assistance is urgently needed with the regeneration of the wonderful seaside town, part of which I represent, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge).
	Tonight I will be focusing primarily on the programmes of structural, economic and cultural development in Southend. However, the main goal underlying regeneration must be to capture and embed the town's sense of identity. Hence the projects in the most visible and central areas of the town, including Victoria avenue, the high street and the seafront will be at the forefront of the educational, retail, office, culture and leisure initiatives planned for the future. Critical to this will be the use of the council's land assets and a corresponding need to ensure that there is a deliverable strategy that also takes into account parking and transport needs and the sad issue of cliff slippage in Westcliff.
	My own constituency of Southend, West, encompassing parts of Westcliff and all of Leigh-on-Sea, is often seen as being quite separate from the hub of Southend's main town centre, but their fortunes are inextricably linked under Southend unitary authority, sharing the same public amenities, transport infrastructure, culture and leisure facilities, and, most importantly, a desire to see Southend thrive in the 21st century. Therefore, tonight I very much want to address some of the problems facing Southend. For instance, in the constituency that I represent of Southend, West, Leigh creek sadly needs dredging, which would take a considerable amount of money, but if it could be done it would help the cocklers and local fishermen.
	There is no doubt that a major part of Southend's revival will be its re-establishment as an attractive and vibrant seaside town for visitors and residents alike. Peter Hampson, who is a director of the British Resorts Association, has blamed transport policy for neglecting train routes to seaside resorts, noting that train fares to coastal towns are often more expensive than a flight to a European destinationwe all realise that cheap flights will not continue for ever. In order to compete seriously with overseas locations, seaside towns need to offer the public more than nostalgia. As Professor John Lennon of Glasgow Caledonian university has noted:
	To be viable, seaside resorts have to diversify. It's no good offering just one visitor attraction and expecting visitor numbers to rise.
	Holidaymakers have become more sophisticated and demand more from seaside resorts.
	Southend's early growth derived from its success as a fishing port, but that was overtaken in the late 19th century by internal tourism as rail infrastructure grew. Towards the middle of the previous century, the town diversified with local industrial and office economies. More recently, those sectors have declined in the town as commuters have made use of the two mainline stations, which connect to London. Despite the comprehensive rail network, Southend still suffers some of the worst traffic congestion in the eastern region, and public transport does not meet all needs at the moment.
	Sustainable development must be the priority in the regeneration of Southend, which means continual inward investment building on the high number of business start-ups and investing in affordable housing for key workers and local people, which is controversial. Tourism has a major role in the town's economy, and projects such as the redevelopment of Southend pier following, for the third time, a fire will be central to the town's fortunes. That seasonal industry can thrive only in the presence of other strong local enterprises. I am delighted to say that Southend has been identified as a major regional centre in the Thames Gateway plan with an emphasis on culture and education, but we will need significant investment from outside the town if it is to fulfil that potential. Southend's unsuccessful and perhaps controversial bid for a regional casino has been well documented. The important point is that Southend wanted a leisure complex, which would have benefited the town enormously.
	In addition to attracting more people to Southend, it is essential that we continue to provide first-class public services for our constituents. For example, there was recently a successful world record attempt in my constituency for gathering together the greatest number of people aged over 100, and the ageing population has increasingly put public services in the spotlight. We are very fortunate to have Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which is reaching all its clinical targets while balancing its books, but other areas, such as social services, are currently under desperate pressure.
	One problem that continues to undermine Southend borough council's spending capacity are the woeful financial settlements awarded to it after the 2001 census, which miscalculated the town's population by 20,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I had an unsatisfactory meeting with the Office for National Statistics, which was not followed by any movement, and local residents are suffering as a consequence. The Government grant to the council was reduced by 7 million, which has resulted in a 2 per cent. increase for 2006-07 compared with the national average increase of 3 per cent. That matter is a great concern for local residents.
	The errors that led to the Government's funding shortfall to Southend have needlessly damaged public services and the town's faith in its council, which has had its hands tied on finance. Despite those setbacks, however, I am determined that the town should fulfil its place as the cultural hub of the Thames Gateway, a successful centre of learning through the expansion of the university of Essex Southend campus, a key location for transport and, importantly, accommodation during the Olympic games and a lively tourist destination that people from outside the area want to visit and of which local residents can be proud. Local identity has been pivotal for several regeneration success stories in the UK in terms of providing a sense of place. For instance, Newquay, Southport, Brighton and Blackpool have all established their identities very successfully.
	Southend has been identified as the centre of culture and leisure in the Thames Gateway. As part of that project, the Government are looking to create 13,000 new jobs and several thousand new homes in Southend by 2021. The plan envisages that growth being achieved through employment-led regeneration to produce a more sustainable balance between housing and employment, with growth targets carefully calculated in an attempt to reduce out-commuting.
	Renaissance Southend was incorporated as a private limited company on 18 March last year in response to the need for regeneration. Its objectives are to assist, promote, encourage, develop and secure regeneration in the social, physical and economic environment of Southend-on-Sea. The high street benefits from two mainline rail stations serving a large number of local stations within the immediate and adjoining urban areas. It also has good proximity to the seafront and a high number of seasonal visitors. However, although work is being undertaken to redevelop Victoria plaza, the quality of retail outlets on offer is generally not ideal for a town the size of Southend and reinforces the impression that residents generally may wish to shop elsewhere, which is very sad. In addition, despite Southend's being reported as the safest place in the country to live in a crime survey earlier this year, there is a general perception that the high street is unsafe after shopping hours, which is largely exacerbated by pedestrianisation. I do not think that Southend high street has ever recovered from the loss of a major store called Keddies.
	The diversity of the high street has recently been enhanced by the relocation of South-East Essex further education college. Work has also commenced on the next phase of the university of Essex campus, with a new enterprise and innovation faculty. A further phase of the university's expansion will be the redevelopment of the Palace hotel, which is going great guns at the moment. It will be used as a conference and business training centre and is due to be completed in late 2007 through a 14 million grant from the Government's sustainable communities fund, for which Southend residents are very grateful, and 1.5 million from the East of England Development Agency. Accommodating the further growth of the University of Essex and South-East Essex college will help to establish the centre of Southend as a cultural hub that could also include a new public and university library, and possibly even a performance and media centre. In addition, Prospects college, a privately run vocational training establishment, has already secured funding for the acquisition of a new site and is putting together funding for the construction of new premises that will significantly enhance vocational skills and training opportunities, particularly for construction-related trades.
	The town is accessed by two principal east-west roadsthe A127 and the A13. While the former is primarily an access route for commercial traffic to the main employment areas, it still suffers from severe congestion during peak hours at a number of junctions. Southend's road network is not fit for purposethe result of historical underfunding by all Governments. The employment-led regeneration objective of Thames Gateway South Essex will be severely constrained without investment in the arterial roads, and there is no evidence as yet that that will be forthcoming. The aforementioned budget shortfalls following the 2001 census forced Southend borough council to cease its subsidies to the two bus operators in the town, which in turn led them to axe all loss-making routes. That has been most harshly felt in the areas of Eastwood and Belfairs, and it has particularly affected senior citizens.
	However, our transport problems in Southend will not be solved simply by diverting people on to public transportcommercial vehicles must be able to access businesses in the town too. The strategy for Southend's regeneration must therefore include wide-scale plans for overhauling our road network. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East might want to mention the Ministry of Defence site in Shoebury. There are also issues regarding the Priory crescent development, which has not yet been signed off. Apart from that, there appears to be no commitment to any other major transport infrastructure for the town to support growth and regeneration.
	Southend airport, which is run by Regional Airports Ltd. has planning permission for a new terminal and rail station plus a current application for an adjacent park-and-ride facility. It recently published a masterplan following the principles set out in the airports White Paper. It reflects its current business plan objective to increase passenger numbers to 1 million people per annum in the next four to five years. Of course, that is again rather controversial.
	The local partners who are engaged with Renaissance Southend have worked hard to develop strategies aimed at overhauling the structural and cultural amenities in the town. Those strategies must tackle the town's ailing tourist industry by re-establishing well-known landmarks such as Southend pier. However, as I said earlier, we cannot rely on a single modern monument and nostalgia alone. More active intervention is imperative. Local residents welcome any tangible and sensible assistance in the regeneration of Southend.

James Duddridge: I congratulate my colleague, neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I should like to make four points.
	First, I reiterate my hon. Friend's point about the 2001 census. Several meetings were held with Ministers in good faith to try to resolve the problem but it persists. Every time that the Government try to redistribute money via local government, Southend gets a poor deal. I hope that the Under-Secretaryan Essex Ministercan shed some light and perhaps even a ray of hope where other Ministers have failed to shine.
	Secondly, there is a democratic deficit in relation to Southend and Essexand, I suspect, in relation to regeneration generally. We have Thames Gateway South Essex, Thames Gateway, a Whitehall tsar for Thames Gateway, the East of England Development Agency, the regional assembly, the county council, the unitary authority and now Renaissance Southend. There is a confusion of regeneration organisations. There are some very talented people in those organisations but I believe that the structures are dysfunctional. The further we move money away from individual members of the public towards either pan-national organisations such as the European Union or regional organisations or quangos, the more poorly it is spent.
	Thirdly, I want to consider infrastructure and Priory crescent. I would greatly appreciate it if the Under-Secretary updated the House on the dualling of Priory crescent. The decision about whether we should dual has been controversial in Southend. However, the matter has been through a public consultation and it would be wrong, having gone through it, and given the need to improve east-west communications, for the road building not to go ahead. I look to the Under-Secretary for an update about the funding and some assurance that protesters will not block the democratic right of local people to dual that road.
	Fourthly, let me look forward to Southend 2012. There is an enormous opportunity to give Southend's position leverage in the region as we approach the Olympics. We have the campus of the university of Essex and we have the airport, as my hon. Friend said. Southend would be an ideal place to base an Olympic team. Let me refer to Members' interests: Southend United made a donation to my party before the election. It was a case of the blues supporting the blues and I reciprocate on Saturdays. Southend is building a 20,000-seater stadium, which I support. That is a possible venue, not for the Olympics, but for a training camp and general training.
	There is so much opportunity. I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary how she and the Department will step up to that enormous opportunity. I am sure that she wants to do that.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing today's debate, which gives us the opportunity to examine the continuing significant work on regeneration in Southend. I am pleased that he recognised the work that is continuing on jobs, skills, culture, education and infrastructure.
	I have a fondness for Southend. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his time in Basildon. When he was Member of Parliament for Basildon, I was the Labour candidate for Southend, West, where I lived for many years. We waved as we passed one another when I returned home to Basildon. So it is interesting for me to be here today, replying to this debate.
	The Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on coastal towns and on the issues facing those towns. That will be valuable in determining the issues that are generic to a number of such towns. Southend faces a number of problems that are caused largely by structural weaknesses in the local economy, and by an over-dependence on tourism, on fishing and on certain types of financial and business institutions. Southend needs a mixed economy, and I am pleased to see the increase in tourism that has taken place since 1998. It might be helpful to look at the figures. In 1998, tourism was worth just over 135 million to Southend. By 2004, the figure had increased to 217 million. That is a great achievement, but we need to see economic regeneration as a whole.
	Southend is often regarded as a leafy, affluent seaside town, but there are pockets of deprivation and economic inactivity, mainly centred around the Milton, Victoria and Kursaal areas in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), which border the sea front. To improve the lives of all the people in Southend, we need not only to improve the physical infrastructure but to create an environment in which the economy can thrive. Education is particularly important in that regard.
	Both hon. Members referred to the census figures, which have caused certain difficulties. Numerous representations have been made between the council, local MPs and the Office for National Statistics. We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but the Government set their grant allocations based on the best information available, which comes from the ONS. I appreciate that correspondence on this matter is ongoing, and the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) has met MPs and members of the council to discuss the issue. I understand that the ONS has invited Southend to participate in a project on improving migration and population statistics. That project will look at the areas of migration that have caused concern to the council and to local MPs, and I hope that the work will provide an explanation and help us to reach a solution.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the revenue support grant. Southend received a net increase of 2.2 per cent. in formula grant in 2006-07, and will provisionally receive 2.7 per cent. in 2007-08. Council tax was increased by 4.9 per cent. While the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southend, West are discussing these matters with the ONS to see whether any progress can be made, they might also like to look at the Audit Commission's use of resources assessments that formed part of its comprehensive assessment work. Southend's use of resources and providing value for money in 2005 received a score of two out of four, so perhaps there is room for Southend council to make some progress there. The Department would of course be happy to help in that regard.
	Speaking as someone who loves Southend pier, I was sorry to hear, a year ago todayit was my husband's birthday, so I remember the date wellthat the pier had been attacked by fire for the third time in living memory. I am pleased to report that the pier reopened in August 2006, however. Hon. Members might be interested to note that, between December 2005 and June 2006, more than 44,000 visitors came to the pier. That is a tremendous achievement, and it shows just how popular an attraction the pier is. I also recommend a visit to the wonderful pier museum to anyone who visits the pier. It is right, however, not to see the pier as the sole attraction, and the work that has gone into supporting the Pier Hill redevelopment, involving nearly 6 million in Government and European money, has had a significant impact in that regard.
	The role of Renaissance Southend in the regeneration programme is important to the town as a whole, and I was disappointed in the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about a democratic deficit. It is important to bring together the public and private sectors in this programme. I know that Renaissance Southend is keen to work with Members of Parliament, and I understand that both the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East and the hon. Member for Southend, West have met its representatives. It is also working closely with the local council, and it is engaged in stakeholder workshops. Last week, it undertook an audit walk through the town centre with invited members of the public. It is also planning more continuous, conventional forms of engagement. The work that it is doing to develop the town as a cultural and educational centre, and the work that it is doing for the university, will be conducted with all partners being involved. I understand that the council is closely involved with the board of Renaissance Southend.
	I was delighted by the enthusiasm for the Olympics shown by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. I share his commitment, and Essex has a tremendous amount to gain. Obviously, the focus will be on east London, but geographical proximity means that we can benefit enormously through such things as the image of our area internationally, the tourism economy and the growth that we will see in business and transport services, skills and jobs. All those will be important to us.
	The Department is closely involved with the Olympic steering committee, and will look at the games and the legacy to see how we can benefit, as well as the whole Thames Gateway group. I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman informed on those issues, given his commitment, but there is a great advantage for the whole of Essex, including Southend, which will benefit.
	Both hon. Members mentioned road improvements in the Priory Crescent area. Part of that is the development between the A127 and Cuckoo Corner areas, which is being considered. Approval was granted by the Government in the 2000 local transport capital settlement, and the Department for Transport contributed 14.5 million. Southend council came back to say that additional money was required, because the project was more expensive than was first thought. In June, the council requested additional funding, not just for road improvements, but for a bus passenger transport corridor. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking at this issue and expects to make an announcement shortly.
	Another issue that is worth mentioning, and both hon. Members referred to it, is tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. Southend is a safe place to be. It is one of the safest areas in the country, but there is no doubt that the people of Southenda MORI poll recorded a figure of 81 per cent.want crime and antisocial behaviour to be tackled better.
	On Friday and Saturday nights, about 13,000 young people move around the clubs and pubs in the Southend area. About 60 per cent. of crime in the borough is committed between 10 pm and 4 am in the town centre and the adjacent streets. The Government have allocated 232,000, which is a great deal of money and which includes 25,000 to tackle antisocial behaviour, to the Southend crime and disorder reduction partnership. There is also 133,000 for a family intervention scheme and 1.6 million from the neighbourhood element of the safer and stronger communities fund.
	That is all having an effect, and I must tell hon. Members that violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery and theft of motor vehicles have all decreased in the last 12 months. There is a very strong message: we are not prepared to tolerate antisocial or yobbish behaviour, and the Government are putting their money where their mouth is to try to tackle those areas.
	There are major development opportunities in the Southend area that can make a difference, but if we really want to make a difference to the economy, we have to tackle education opportunities as well. The campus of the university of Essex has already been mentioned. This is a 52 million investment in South East Essex college, right in the heart of the town centre. The state-of-the-art campus of the university of Essex at Southend will provide educational facilities, a business development centre and an innovation centre alongside commercial space. We anticipate that it will create up to 800 jobs in Southend.
	There is also support for the establishment of a trust school at Thorpe Bay, which will bring a failing school out of special measures and create a major new vocational training centre. There are funding opportunities, as pump-priming funding has also come in to support work on Pier Hill. As part of the commitment to establishing Renaissance Southend, the East of England Development Agency has pledged to spend an average of 3 million to 5 million a year in the Southend area.
	Southend airport also has the potential to contribute more to the economy of Southend. It has aspirations for growth of about 1 million passengers a year by 2012.
	In conclusion, it is important that we look forward. As both hon. Members said, Southend has the potential to be a major hub of prosperity in the region. Given the way in which people are working together in the primary care trust, police, council and Renaissance Southend, I hope that the slogan when I lived in Southend, Southend-on-Sea, the place to be, will come true again for Southend. There are challenges ahead, which I would not underestimate, but I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will be reassured that the support from the Government, ongoing activities, plans and investment are there to make Southend's prospects much brighter in the future.
	Finally, it is worth noting that in  Yours magazine's survey of the best places to live and retire to, Southend-on-Sea came top. The magazine said that it was a bargain retirement location with a low violent crime rate, and a home to seven miles of award-winning beaches, with more than 80 parks and open spaces and lots of activities for older people. The editor of  Yours said:
	Southend-on-Sea may not be the average person's idea of an idyllic retirement town but it's got everything older people really need.
	We want to work with Renaissance Southend, Southend borough council and Members of Parliament to ensure that it not only has everything that older people need but the jobs, homes and infrastructure that all people need. I welcome the support of the hon. Members, Southend borough council and the Renaissance partnership to ensure that we achieve that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock